[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Ego an I or a Me?

[BillyG.]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wgm4u@ 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'.
 
 
 Sort of like the old V-8 commercial Darn, I could have had infinitty

Right on bro.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Ego an I or a Me?

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, brontebaxter8 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
 To claim that the ego is only a Me is to perceive only its limited 
 expression. Such limited expression certainly needs dissolving for 
 cosmic bliss to occur. But the Me only needs to dissolve into the 
 I. It was never intended by the Infinite that the I should dissolve 
 into non-existence.

I really think this all boils down to a matter of
semantics. I've never understood that in
enlightenment the I dissolves into nonexistence;
rather, what dissolves into nonsexistence (because
it was an illusion to start with) is *identification*
with the I. The I is still there, doing its
thing, not in any way inhibited by the lack of
identification with it.

Peter has been doing some excellent posts on this.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Ego an I or a Me?

[BillyG.]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, brontebaxter8
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 So what is the ego, an I or a Me? Me is something that things are 
 done to. I is a doer. 

snip


 Yes, Vedic philosophy seems so 
 unlimited. It speaks eloquently of the Unlimited. But it teaches you 
 that to live the Infinite, you have to give up your personhood. I 
 have found out from experience that simply is not true.

In order to understand the ego it is first useful to understand what
the soul is, as the ego usurps it's identity from the soul much like
Duryodana usurped the kingdom (awareness of spirit) from the Pandavas
in the Bhagavad Gita
thru a rigged game of dice (symbolizing the illusion of material
existence it's not real it's a 'game').

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/reincarnation).  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.

Evolution is the process of shedding this identification with illusory
matter (maya/avidya) and reestablishing the reign of soul (pure
spirit) or put another way enabling the Pandavas to regain there lost
kingdom from the wicked Kurus (sense
tendencies resulting in attachment  identification).

Ref. MMY Flower analogy.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Ego an I or a Me?

[Bronte Baxter]

  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. 
  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. 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.  
   

   
-
Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, 
photos  more. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Ego an I or a Me?

[BillyG.]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bronte Baxter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Ego an I or a Me?

[John]

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.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Ego an I or a Me?

[new . morning]

--- 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'.


Sort of like the old V-8 commercial Darn, I could have had infinitty