|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
gumpi
United Kingdom
546 Posts |
 Posted - Nov 21 2008 : 12:15:34 PM
|
Simple question. Just one point of clarification before the replies come buzzing through: by "ego" i mean the sense of being an individual self seperate from God. Not seperate in the sense of being completely distinct but seperate enough to notice a distinction.
Thanks |
|
|
Propundit
USA
24 Posts |
Posted - Nov 21 2008 : 1:31:25 PM
|
| Interesting question - since dissolving the ego is part of the process of enlightenment in so many traditions. I would say that the ego can be turned back on as needed, but is not dominant as it normally is. Can the enlightened person remember where he put his car keys?? |
 |
|
|
gumpi
United Kingdom
546 Posts |
Posted - Nov 21 2008 : 2:01:44 PM
|
Hahaha, and there you were lecturing me with nice language on science before! LOL
|
|
|
|
Propundit
USA
24 Posts |
Posted - Nov 21 2008 : 2:13:20 PM
|
Well, I am a scientist at my day job, and don't plan on quitting it, and you were looking for answers in science on that discussion. But science is not so interested in ideas like enlightenment, the ego, right conduct, etc ... all important, but mostly outside the domain of science.  |
Edited by - Propundit on Nov 21 2008 2:34:01 PM |
|
|
|
Jo-self
USA
225 Posts |
Posted - Nov 21 2008 : 3:13:31 PM
|
Maharishi (of TM) once commented that even in the highest (stable!) state, there is a 'trace' of ignorance, some individuation.
Me, I think that the physical body will always require an ego. In fact, in some yoga texts there is a description of the four-fold organ, one part of which is the ego. But, like thoughts, which are sometimes not paid attention to, the ego is also not necessarily a fixed focus, it too is witnessed, including its plus and minuses.
-- jo-self
|
|
|
|
Ananda
3115 Posts |
Posted - Nov 23 2008 : 11:22:53 AM
|
namaste my friends,
most of the enlightened say the same thing as Maharishi, and some of them even tend to fall back from the wagon and feed their ego more than the usual they tend to misuse their karisma as teachers.
take swami rama for example, he is considered to be an enlightened but still......
by the way, i'm not speaking in any bad way toward his teachings and those of the himalayan masters they have all my out most respect and they are teachings of great value.
i see a lot of the stuff i've read in AYP in them, plus swami rama is one among the many there are others...
and if you want to go advaita vedanta, then check out christy’s post:
http://www.aypsite.org/forum/topic....erms=gangaji
light and love,
Ananda
|
|
|
|
mikkiji
USA
219 Posts |
Posted - Nov 23 2008 : 1:03:41 PM
|
I studied with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi for several years, and he explained it like this: God is like the ocean--it is the same everywhere, no differences, no boundaries, no limitation. It may rise in individual waves, but at its source remains just the unbounded ocean. We are like a glass of water taken out of that ocean temporarily. The ego is the a container, sort of like a glass which contains the water. If we think of the individual personality, intellect, memories, experiences and ego as the glass, then what is IN that glass is still everywhere the same, but just a small piece of it. We see each glass as different, because they may be different sizes, shapes, colors, etc., but when the container breaks, the water pours back into the ocean and rejoins its source. An enlightened person has a "container" which is nearly invisible, very difficult to see--clean, purified, colorless and nearly as unmanifest as the water within, but it is still there and it still contains the individual's portion of the divine, unbounded Whole. So, yes, some small part of ego, some minor shadow of ignorance DOES remain, in order to keep one embodied within the individual.
Michael |
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Nov 23 2008 : 3:35:20 PM
|
Interesting way to put it, Michael. Whenever this subject comes up, it is always asked by some spiritual aspirant who wants to know the loss that may be incurred on letting go of the ego. There is one thing that is rarely mentioned, and I think the reason is that it wouldn't benefit the student at this stage.
I believe that there is value in that vessel holding the divine essence. I think it contributes somehow to the whole. Would God create us just for company or entertainment? Those seem awfully human-like desires, but possibly.
I'm sure God could wipe out all our karma and ego in a second if he/she wanted. Or if free choice is so important, I'm sure he could show us each a God-movie presentation that would convince us to give it all up by choice.
So that leads me to believe that our experiences and interactions have eternal value even though our individuality may not. And that value is dependent on free choice.
Of course if God created time, then everything may have already been done which boggles the mind, and there's also the possibility that it's all illusion with no value, but I tend to think not. |
|
|
|
neli
USA
283 Posts |
Posted - Nov 24 2008 : 05:06:14 AM
|
Gumpi,
Have you ever seen Dattatreya on Youtube ? well he is a guru for many people and a good one as I have seen in his videos. Does he have an ego ? In my opinion, yes he have one, the same as the Dalai Lama and many. I think if one have a body is normal to have an ego. Having an ego doesn't make the person less important. Lots of people think that Dattatreya guru is a cheap one, I don't think so, same as Sai Baba.
I like to see Dattatreya dressed full of colours, like a flower, that man has a charisma. If he has an ego, its also lovely !
In the small things are the big secrets.
Neli
quote:
Originally posted by gumpi
Simple question. Just one point of clarification before the replies come buzzing through: by "ego" i mean the sense of being an individual self seperate from God. Not seperate in the sense of being completely distinct but seperate enough to notice a distinction.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Nov 24 2008 : 07:31:51 AM
|
| I've seen Dattatreya on you tube. He should have plenty of money to buy colors and flowers with what he charges! His websites are full of outrageous charges, sort of unusual for anyone without an ego. |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4514 Posts |
Posted - Nov 24 2008 : 09:33:03 AM
|
Hi all,
I think it is necessary to keep some trace of ego, otherwise you would keep walking into walls, and when someone calls your name, you would just walk straight past them.
In fact, I remember Yogani once said that the ego is not disolved in enlightenment, it remains but is transcended. So we no longer act from that level, but can use it when we need it.
Christi |
|
|
|
gumpi
United Kingdom
546 Posts |
Posted - Nov 24 2008 : 11:39:41 AM
|
So it seems that most people here think that a trace of the ego remains in enlightened persons. This makes sense to me. Perhaps all that happens is the ego diminishes in size as intuitive experiences take over.
From my observations of persons considered enlightened there seems to be much difference in character between them, and even sometimes they do seem like normal people with egotistical outbursts.
I have not seen Dattatreya before. I'm not against people with nice personalities that seem almost outrageous. I think it is a sign of charisma. In fact it could even indicate strong shakti.
My theory is that God created individuals for eternity. Otherwise, what would be the point in doing it? It is understandable that evolution could involve a merging back into God's absolute nature but i think all the individuals that have been created exist forever in the "mind" of God.
I bought Darwin's Origin of Species today. Look forward to reading it. I was interested in it because i discovered that all life on earth reproduced through tiny egg carrying particles called spores and not as some instantaneous magical creation of everything. Most people don't even know this. They are just familiar with classic arguments like "man came from monkeys" and "which came first, the chicken or the egg?". But both of these ideas are false. It was apes not monkeys that were our common ancestors in a very slow process of evolution which we have discovered has intermediate mutations of man-like species (cromagnon man, for example). And spores are like primitive forms of eggs that explain everything from plants to trees to insects to fish to animals and us.
I also got another book called "born to believe" which is an examination of human beliefs from the perspective of neuroscience. It looks more specifically at meditation and prayer and their effects on the brain.
Something i found on Youtube yesterday - a documentary about the "Buddha Boy" in Nepal. Extremely interesting to watch. He apparently went without food or water and didn't move much for 10 months (which is obviously impossible according to medical science). They filmed him straight for over four days and he didn't move at all, his skin was fine etc. The only things they observed were that he sometimes sweat, which they think is due to him doing a technique called "tummo", and he sometimes shifted his buttocks to restore circulation. This should give "scientists" something to ponder. |
Edited by - gumpi on Nov 26 2008 11:58:14 AM |
|
|
|
neli
USA
283 Posts |
Posted - Nov 25 2008 : 03:58:44 AM
|
Etherfish
I've seen guru Mayi's people knelt before her in total adoration, kissing her hand, and sometimes her feet, accepting this from people, is to have a real big ego. Her people also charges a lot of money.
I don't know if the problem is with people, that immediately falls into fanatism, or with the guru. Although I think its most of all a business organization.
Neli
quote:
Originally posted by Etherfish
I've seen Dattatreya on you tube. He should have plenty of money to buy colors and flowers with what he charges! His websites are full of outrageous charges, sort of unusual for anyone without an ego.
|
|
|
|
neli
USA
283 Posts |
Posted - Nov 25 2008 : 04:33:11 AM
|
Gumpi,
I know that Sai Baba looks strange, but tell me of one guru that looks "normal" to you ? in fact what is normal ? he has many people all around the world, I know that he is a *show* man to us, as Dattatreya, or guru Mayi, or the Dalai Lama are, but they are gurus to their people and I know by some friends that they perfom many miracles. Of course they have big egos, cause we cannot live without ego.
Who made their egos ? people, US, we always fall into adoration before someone, its our style of learning.
I have knelt before guru Mayi, kissed her hands and feet, as all the others,(a very long line of people) even if I didn't want to, but all of them were doing that and if I rejected to do it, I was gonna be seen with anger by the ones who *control* all the business that are called the "big masters" and I didn't want that. In fact my ego was trained to kneel, to kiss hands or feet till I woke up and went out.
Neli
quote:
Originally posted by gumpi
So it seems that most people here think that a trace of the ego remains in enlightened persons. This makes sense to me. Perhaps all that happens is the ego diminishes in size as intuitive experiences take over.
From my observations of persons considered enlightened there seems to be much difference in character between them, and even sometimes they do seem like normal people with egotistical outbursts.
I have not seen Dattatreya before. I'm not against people with nice personalities that seem almost outrageous. I think it is a sign of charisma. In fact it could even indicate strong shakti.
My theory is that God created individuals for eternity. Otherwise, what would be the point in doing it? It is understandable that evolution could involve a merging back into God's absolute nature but i think all the individuals that have been created exist forever in the "mind" of God.
I bought Darwin's Origin of Species today. Look forward to reading it. I was interested in it because i discovered that all life on earth reproduced through tiny egg carrying particles called spores and not as some instantaneous magical creation of everything. Most people don't even know this. They are just familiar with classic arguments like "man came from monkeys" and "which came first, the chicken or the egg?". But both of these ideas are false. It was apes not monkeys that were our common ancestors in a very slow process of evolution which we have discovered has intermediate mutations of man-like species (cromagnon man, for example). And spores are like primitive forms of eggs that explain everything from plants to trees to insects to fish to animals and us.
I also got another book called "born to believe" which is an examination of human beliefs from the perspective of neuroscience. It looks more specifically at meditation and prayer and their effects on the brain.
Something i found on Youtube yesterday - a documentary about the "Buddha Boy" in Nepal. Extremely interesting to watch. He apparently went without food or water and didn't move much for 10 months (which is obviously impossible according to medical science). They filmed him straight for over four days and he didn't move at all, his skin was fine etc. The only things they observed were that he sometimes sweat, which they think is due to him doing a technique called "tummo", and he sometimes shifted his buttocks to restore circulation. This should give "scientists" something to ponder.
Moderator note: Post moderated with authors permission. |
Edited by - AYPforum on Nov 28 2008 10:40:13 AM |
|
|
|
gumpi
United Kingdom
546 Posts |
Posted - Nov 25 2008 : 12:55:35 PM
|
Excuse me for again sounding "hostile" but when i said that Sai Baba's hair looks silly it was a JOKE, which i followed with "LOL".
There is no such thing as "normal".
I believe any miracles around this man are projections onto him from his devotees or happen by God, not by him. Please review the evidence. |
|
|
|
neli
USA
283 Posts |
Posted - Nov 26 2008 : 03:25:20 AM
|
Gumpi,
Don't worry, I know that you are telling your point of view and many other's one, although a lot of other people would differ.
I personally am suspicious about Sai Baba, but have met some friends that live in India and are his disciples, others travel many times to India to see Sai Baba, and Know by first hand that he have performed big miracles or healings on them. I know that he is a *show* man, maybe I have seen just one side of him, I'll see what you point out.
Sai Baba do not have charisma and for me Dattatreya has a wonderful charisma, although that doesn't mean that he is not a big show man.
Guru Mayi has also a wonderful charisma, but I was fed up about the kneeling before her, and the other things.
One must love the *teachings* not the gurus, I think it's our fault, but its impossible to be aware of that if you are inside, it takes years to be aware of that.
All people in Siddha Yoga have big pictures of guru Mayi, like if she was a Goddess, and no one put attention on the teachings.
Empathy is different than adoration.
I'll review the evidence, I agree with you in many points, sometimes devotees are also dangerous, thanks God that I went out from some of that kind of groups, really dangerous people when they are so fanatical and one tries to escape from them. 
Neli
quote:
Originally posted by gumpi
Excuse me for again sounding "hostile" but when i said that Sai Baba's hair looks silly it was a JOKE, which i followed with "LOL".
There is no such thing as "normal".
I believe any miracles around this man are projections onto him from his devotees or happen by God, not by him. Please review the evidence.
|
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
|
|
karl
United Kingdom
1812 Posts |
Posted - Nov 26 2008 : 07:35:58 AM
|
I'm new here, but this is a subject that we have hammered around the NLP forums from time to time.
I think there are two camps.
1) Is a Guru who has the specific aim of helping others reach enlightenment without any form of material reward.
2)A Guru who does not feel the need to help others by broadcasting any philosophy and having no need for the material world. I suspect that sort of person would be totally invisible in the world, so much so that they never existed in the first place or are at the point of disappearing from all others conciousness.
In NLP terms all actions have positive intentions. So in the first case, although the reward is not material there is certainly some sort of reward. The only place this could manifest is in Ego.
In the second case, the intention to reject others is also bound by Ego up until the time they become truly enlightened at which point I would argue that it would appear that they had never existed.
So, no Ego I suspect would mean no person. |
|
|
|
neli
USA
283 Posts |
Posted - Nov 26 2008 : 8:12:51 PM
|
Karl,
Big Organizations like any kind of Yoga or Scientology or Religions, take your Ego away and your mind.
I agree with you, no ego, no person. But we must try to control it at least. I don't think it would fade away. We can just control it.
Neli
quote:
Originally posted by karl
I'm new here, but this is a subject that we have hammered around the NLP forums from time to time.
I think there are two camps.
1) Is a Guru who has the specific aim of helping others reach enlightenment without any form of material reward.
2)A Guru who does not feel the need to help others by broadcasting any philosophy and having no need for the material world. I suspect that sort of person would be totally invisible in the world, so much so that they never existed in the first place or are at the point of disappearing from all others conciousness.
In NLP terms all actions have positive intentions. So in the first case, although the reward is not material there is certainly some sort of reward. The only place this could manifest is in Ego.
In the second case, the intention to reject others is also bound by Ego up until the time they become truly enlightened at which point I would argue that it would appear that they had never existed.
So, no Ego I suspect would mean no person.
|
|
|
|
yogibear
409 Posts |
Posted - Nov 27 2008 : 09:23:29 AM
|
| Ramakrishna said that he had just enough ego so that his body wouldn't dissolve. |
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Nov 27 2008 : 10:36:59 AM
|
| Yes I think the ego has a definite purpose and that is to not only create our individuality and reality, but also to protect the body once it is created. Not enough ego and I think predators walk on you and you can create something worse than not existing. |
|
|
|
karl
United Kingdom
1812 Posts |
Posted - Nov 27 2008 : 12:32:17 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by yogibear
Ramakrishna said that he had just enough ego so that his body wouldn't dissolve.
That would be my own understanding.
One of the quotes from Bruce Lee was 'Be like water'. The less reason you have to exist the less reason you need a body. Its funny but you can see these quotes in films like Star Wars 'Strike me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine. The Bible 'The meek shall inherit the earth' and so on. |
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Nov 27 2008 : 1:02:49 PM
|
"The Bible 'The meek shall inherit the earth'"
I thought this was a prophetic vision of Bill Gates and Microsoft. |
|
|
|
neli
USA
283 Posts |
|
|
windh2o
USA
27 Posts |
Posted - Feb 16 2009 : 02:14:44 AM
|
Ego: without referring to any spiritual or psychological works or texts - it seems to me we need some kind of identity if we choose to be "grihasatvas" (householders) and function in society anywhere in the world. I guess there are many different levels of ego - sometimes here in India (I'm going home in 8 days) and in the States its exaggerated to an unbearable point.
Attitude: Something to do with the qualities of one's ego? It exists in modern society in India and the West in abundance - sometimes good, mostly negative.
|
|
|
|
wigswest
USA
115 Posts |
Posted - Feb 17 2009 : 9:53:31 PM
|
One reason I stayed away from yoga for so long was the concentration on individual gurus. It seems to me to be a dangerous thing, for both the gurus and their followers, to have so much attention placed on an individual. I have great respect for Yogani for not walking this same path.
"Whenever this subject comes up, it is always asked by some spiritual aspirant who wants to know the loss that may be incurred on letting go of the ego."
I have noticed this on other sites as well. What is lost when letting go of the ego? Well, the ego, of course. The ego will always fight against this loss, with everything that it has, all the trickery and illusion it can muster.
But what is gained? A soul freedom that the very core of ourselves, much bigger than our individual ego, longs for.
I don't know if the ego is "necessary" to keep our corporeal self together. I actually think that is just a way for the ego to justify its existence.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
do enlightened persons have an ego?
