I and EGO

[Guest guest]

Dear Gurubhakti M,

 

To me, the individual is the ATMAN (Bahman manifested). That would be

the ultimate meaning of I. The individual creates the mind for its

play. The mind is made up of the considerations generated by the

individual. The mind acts also as a storehouse of impressions of

things " outside " the individual. It is an instrument much like a

computer but much more sophisticated. When the mind usurps the

position of the I, and starts to pose as the " I " then we have the ego.

 

The real I is creative without limitation. The ego is only

" mechanically creative " if creative at all. It is limited as a

computer program is limited in the sense that it can do only what it

is programmed to do. Here the real I is unaware of itself. And that

may be looked upon as " under the influence of Maya. " It is very

similar to being in a hypnotized condition.

 

It is only the considerations that exist in time and space and not

the I. The limitations of time and space are imposed upon I when the

I cannot differentiate itself from its considerations. This effect is

produced when you think a thought, and then you start believing

yourself to be that thought (forgetting that that thought was just a

creation of you).

 

The above is simply an attempt to explain the observations of the

ancient texts scientifically.

 

More later ...

 

Vinaire

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

" M " <currwamp

 

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

[Guest guest]

Dear Gurubhakti M,

 

To me, the individual is the ATMAN (Bahman manifested). That would be

the ultimate meaning of I.

 

Of course.

 

The individual creates the mind for its

play.

 

No, the Lord does.

 

The mind is made up of the considerations generated by the

individual.

 

That is the buddhi.

 

The mind acts also as a storehouse of impressions of

things " outside " the individual. It is an instrument much like a

computer but much more sophisticated. When the mind usurps the

position of the I, and starts to pose as the " I " then we have the ego.

 

In traditional Hindu thought, the ego or ahamkara is the limited " I " making

principle. It is commonly misunderstood to mean the personality.

 

The real I is creative without limitation. The ego is only

" mechanically creative " if creative at all. It is limited as a

computer program is limited in the sense that it can do only what it

is programmed to do. Here the real I is unaware of itself.

 

 

No, the Lord of all, the One without a second, is never unaware or out of

control of His very Self. It is common knowledge that the Lord is the play, but

He is forever untainted by the play, being both immanent and transcendent.

 

It is only the considerations that exist in time and space and not

the I.

 

That point in time space, which is limited, is the Ahamkara, or limited sense of

" I. " It is only relatively real, however.

 

The limitations of time and space are imposed upon I when the

I cannot differentiate itself from its considerations. This effect is

produced when you think a thought, and then you start believing

yourself to be that thought (forgetting that that thought was just a

creation of you).

 

No, the limitations of time, space, fullness, authorship, and knowledge are

imposed when the Lord wills.

 

 

Gurubhakti M

[Guest guest]

Dear Edith,

 

We may not be so far off in our understanding. We seem to be using

the accepted terminology in different ways. Let me explain my

position.

 

To me the self means ATMAN. It means a BEING. Period.

 

An ATMAN may or may not be identifying itself with the body and the

mind. But that identification is simply something added to an ATMAN.

It is not part of the definition of ATMAN.

 

An individual self is this BEING (ATMAN). An Avatar is also this

BEING (ATMAN). An Avatar is an individual self who does not have an

ego.

 

The ego is NOT the self as you have written. Ego is something that

has usurped the position of the self. It is the false " I. "

 

More technically, EGO is a portion of the mind that has taken over

the command of the organism from the self (ATMAN). When the self

(ATMAN) is no longer commanding the organism, that is so say, when

the command post of the ATMAN is usurped by the mind, then we have

EGO manifested.

 

Here we are talking about the real I being substituted by a false " I "

that was programmed by the real I in the first place. EGO is the mind

acting for I for whatever reason.

 

This is more of a technical defintion of the EGO. I hope it makes sense.

 

Vinaire

 

 

Ramakrishna , EDTipple <edtipple@c...> wrote:

> Dear Vinaire,

>

> You ask what the difference is between an individual self (ego) and

an

> Avatar (Personal God).

>

> The individual self is the Atman associated with the body and mind.

An

> Avatar is a divine incarnation, God descended, not born in

consequence

> of past deeds and tendencies like other embodied souls; born as the

> result of free choice.

>

> In a class on Patanjali's Yoga Aphorisms Swami Prabhavananda said:

" The

> sense of ego is not meant vanity (that is an expanded form of

egoism),

> but the consciousness of an ego. As an individual being you may be

very

> humble, but still you have the sense of ego. It is the

identification

> of the seer with the instrument of seeing. "

>

> I can't remember exactly how this discussion got started, but it was

> something to the effect of your saying that stating you had

accomplished

> something had nothing to do with ego. And you related that to

Brahman

> somehow. I'm sorry I don't have your exact words.

> Edith