-Thx...I agree. However, there are several types of egos. As pointed out by another contributor, we can describe and define a "social ego" that includes a collective manner of habits, and conditionings built up over a long period of time, based largely on a predictable mode of interacting with others. The various types of egos are often confused and conflated in Neo-Advaitic discussions. For example, one statement may say, "the ego has been eradicated"; but what's been eradicated is the notion of an internal "I" based on a fictitious self-identity centered somehow in the mind as a type of core. There is no such core. Nevertheless, the individual may continue to interact with others (perhaps) in the same way as "before", with the same social ego. Such an ego may include what many regard as perverse sexual relationships and an usual level of greed.
-- In [email protected], "Jack Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], Peter <drpetersutphen@> wrote: > > > > Well, as you know, you can't experience CC because > > nobody's there to experience anything or, more > > accurately, to experience nothing. he-he! > > > > To clarify: "nobody's there to experience anything" means that the ego > (the self) has gone. > > I tend to define the word ego as the "pathological ego" to distinguish > it from ahamkar. The "pathological ego" is the time-bound sense of > self-identity based completely in the relative. > > Given those definitions, I seriously doubt the ego is completely gone > in the state of CC. > > The pathological ego wasn't even completely gone in MMY. Of course > that raises questions about what state MMY was in as well as other > questions about the ego in the state of enlightenment. > > Personally, I would have to assume that the pathological ego is > completely gone in UC. Since I am not in UC (and since I still have a > pathological ego problem), I can't answer based on my own experience! >
