Guest guest Posted March 3, 2000 Report Share Posted March 3, 2000 The ego is the individual self. Krishna spoke as Avatar or Personal God. Edith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 3, 2000 Report Share Posted March 3, 2000 Dear Vinaire, Ego is not bad, but a statement of fact. The " ripe ego " is the, what you call, " truthful ego " , but it is still identified with body/mind and has not become one with the Infinite. If one can claim accomplishment and not be attached to that accompishment, that is wonderful and is a good step forward -- but it does not mean that one is established in Brahman. Edith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2000 Report Share Posted March 4, 2000 Ego is individual I-ness. It the coverings of Maya that limit the infinite to a finite I relative in time-space. Maya hase five coverings or kanchukas, which relate to limitation in time, space, authorship, knowledge, and fullness. These kanchukas are not eternal, as is the nature of anything which is known. I is this sense of limitation or individual, which, in due course, will attain to the true nature, at which time that which is Eternally Real will be presented as the true nature. I in the limited sense is only relatively real, as is all objects. Gurubhakti M - EDTipple Ramakrishna Friday, March 03, 2000 4:56 PM Re: [ramakrishna] Digest Number 370 EDTipple <edtipple Dear Vinaire, Ego is not bad, but a statement of fact. The " ripe ego " is the, what you call, " truthful ego " , but it is still identified with body/mind and has not become one with the Infinite. If one can claim accomplishment and not be attached to that accompishment, that is wonderful and is a good step forward -- but it does not mean that one is established in Brahman. Edith ------ GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates as low as 0.0% Intro APR and no hidden fees. Apply NOW! http://click./1/975/1/_/411454/_/952127518/ ------ Sri Ramakrishnaye Namah Vivekananda Centre London http://www.btinternet.com/~vivekananda/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2000 Report Share Posted March 4, 2000 What is the difference between an individual self (ego) and an Avatar (Personal God)? - EDTipple Ramakrishna Friday, March 03, 2000 5:47 PM Re: [ramakrishna] Digest Number 370 EDTipple <edtipple The ego is the individual self. Krishna spoke as Avatar or Personal God. Edith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2000 Report Share Posted March 4, 2000 Dear Edith, What does these expressions, such as, " becoming one with Infinite " and " becoming established in Brahman " means? These appear to me just some poetic expressions that need to be explained scientifically. There seem to be underlying assumptions here that are unstated and unverified. Vinaire - EDTipple Ramakrishna Friday, March 03, 2000 5:56 PM Re: [ramakrishna] Digest Number 370 EDTipple <edtipple Dear Vinaire, Ego is not bad, but a statement of fact. The " ripe ego " is the, what you call, " truthful ego " , but it is still identified with body/mind and has not become one with the Infinite. If one can claim accomplishment and not be attached to that accompishment, that is wonderful and is a good step forward -- but it does not mean that one is established in Brahman. Edith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2000 Report Share Posted March 4, 2000 Dear Galini Neyman, Scholars are not in agreement about the date of the composition/revelation of the Bhagavad Gita. Western ones are prone to place it, as you appear to have been told, after Buddhism. Many Indian scholars would reject that presumption and place it at least 7 or 8 centuries BCE. There is large agreement (among both Western and Indian scholars) that it is among the many insertions which have taken place over centuries into the Mahabharata; but that tells us little about date. So, from internal evidence only we have to make our assumptions about the society and its systems. I should like, however, to caution you against assuming that the content of the Gita is derivative of Buddhism; even if it were to be proved that the composition date was late, the material it represents is the " gist " , the essence, of the Upanishads. And, as Sri Ramakrishna remarks, " There must have been SOMEONE of the measure of Sri Krishna, to have given expression to the Gita " (even discounting all legendary material). Swami Vivekananda said that there will never be another mind so great as the one that composed it. I spent six years in the academic environment of a great university, and I know how little their " experts " understand of the real nature of Hinduism and its scriptures. Suggest you try to get hold of material from Indian sources to balance your scholarship. Here is an excellent source from an Australian!: THE WONDER THAT WAS INDIA, by Basham. 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.