I'm always amazed at the things people say so unconsciously ... "The Ego" ,"The
Divine".
In post-20th Century spiritual language it has become common to speak this
way - putting an article before the word. I believe it started with the
Freudians using this type of language to fortify their claims about the
persistence of trace psychological structures in common language. However, it
now has become commonplace in new-age and "spiritual" talk.
To overstate the obvious: "Ego" is the Latin word for "I". To place an
article such as the word "the" in front of the word "ego" objectifies it and
turns this common referent into an "object of observation". Who then is left to
"observe" the "I" or "ego". Another "I" other than the "I" called "me"? Two
"I"s then? One objective and the other subjective? Bullshit!
This is all a form of speech which has become a mode for obscuring how we
know objects and how we know ourselves.
Object and selves? Yes, just like that, "object there, subject here". This
simple phenomenological structure is the root of all philosophical inquiry and
of all psychological integrity (ie. simple sanity).
Sound "dualistic"? I hope so! Because only western, hypnotized,
pseudo-advaitins and their Buddhist co-bullshitters could possibly believe that
they are not indulging in grossly fantasized conceptuality by using this type
of language.
Is it final? NO. Is it necessary? YES.
So what about "The Divine"? This religious-speak is an word-absurdity painted
upon a demythologized Zeus-Paeter, the warmly feared "God the father".
"The Divine" is a mode of speech designed to shelter us from our frightful
picture of a horrible, wrathful God. However is also shelters us from having to
confront the "Being" at the heart of the most powerful experiences of deity
found in the western tradition - all-consuming fire, overwhelming light,
extinguishing presence, drowning dissolution.
"The Ego."
"The Divine."
The Self-Delusion.
The Self-Indulgence.
John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Both of you are making good points. We don't see any major
difference between your ideas. I would just like to add something to
the discussion about the point relating to the 'mistake of the
intellect'. This mistake can be the contributing factor of those who
are agnostics or atheists. I believe they have created a human set
of values into which the Divine is supposed to fulfill before they
will accept Its existence. However, the Divine is beyond these set
of values. Hence, they fail to see the message. But I doubt if one
can convince them otherwise.
I believe this issue is depicted in the story of the war between the
good and bad angels. Similarly, the same message is made in the
vedic story of the demigods and demons battling for the pot of amrita
created by their churning of the ocean of milk.
In the end, one can only say, "to each his own".
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bronte Baxter
> <brontebaxter8@> wrote:
> >
> > Bill wrote:
> > The soul is a pure reflection of God called the Jivatma, when
in >the
> > beginning when it was tempted by Lucifer (maya/avidya) in the
Garden
> > of Eden (pure innocence) it was warned not to eat of the tree of
> > knowledge of Good and evil or surely it would die (be subject to
the
> >wheel of
> > samasara/reincarnat ion). Because it disobeyed and identified
itself
> > with material creation (i.e. the flesh) it became trapped due to
> > attachment, the product of this identification is the 'ego' or the
> > pseudo-soul.
> >
> > Bronte writes:
> > I would say the creation went awry NOT when the soul identified
> >with material creation (which it was supposed to do) but when it
> >forgot that it was the Infinite. We can involve ourselves in matter
> >all we like as long as we maintain our cosmic connection.
>
> Same difference really, I've heard it called the 'mistake of the
> intellect'. It 'forgot' it was the infinite *because* it identified
> with something 'other' than the infinite/Self, hence the 'fall of
man'.
>
> > Enlightenment means remembering that connection. But if you add
to
> >the meaning of enlightenment that you have to disidentify with your
> >soul, you have subverted the purpose of creation.
>
> You don't disidentify with the soul you disidentify with avidya or
the
> individual illusion of identification of matter and circumstances,
the
> product of which is the me and I. Whenever you use the terms me
and I
> you draw a circle creating a boundary, that's not infinite, you are
> that, *tat tvam asi* (Upanishads-That Thou Art).
>
>
> > Because being so disidentified, you will never be a dynamic
creator,
> >only a passive observer. You'll "watch" your "body/mind" or "meat
> >robot" rather than BE your brilliant individuality.
>
> Yes and NO, it is the gunas the that are the true actors in creation
> not the ego or I, as such when nature carries out the brilliance of
> creation it stands next to none in creativity and beauty.
>
> You could call it being a passive observer but...there's only room
for
> ONE God in creation, sorry! :-( It all belongs to God, this is his
> creation and we are all reflections of HIM, realizing that is true
wisdom.
>
---------------------------------
Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel
and lay it on us.
