--Thx. My point is mainly a criticism against Neo-Advaita, in which there are several propositions: 1. When the false "I" is transcended and let go, there's no ego. OK, stop right here. A number of contributors have already made the point of there being several types of ego. Already, the Neo-Advaitins have exceeded the boundaries of logic since given that the "I" has been transcended, this says nothing about the social ego.
2. The Neo-Advaitins define the term "ego" overbroadly, as if if to include certain modes of behavior by way of exclusion; that is, if one no longer "has" an ego (per #1), this would imply that the behaviors in question would be imposssible. (since the certain types of behavior are exhibitions of "ego" - say greed and various sexual perversions. 3. As a consequence of #1 and #2, (say the Neo-Advaitins), if ego is transcended and is "seen" as delusional and thus non-existent, then it would be impossible for such persons to display (say) greed and sexual perversions. 4. While the TMO worldview isn't as extreme as Neo-Advaita, SOME of the Neo-Advaitic-type illogic has crept into TM-speak in terms of dharmic actions and "errors". 5. The TMO-speak counterpart to the corresponding Neo-Advaitic error would be that having transcended the "ego", the person performs only Dharmic actions, and "errors" are impossible. Thus, the Neo-Advaitic error and the TMO-speak errors are related; and a result of conflating the various types of egos. actions judged by outsiders to 2. - In [email protected], "Jack Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > matrixmonitor - would you care to expand on these different ego > definitions? Other comments inline below. > > --- In [email protected], "matrixmonitor" > <matrixmonitor@> wrote: > > > > -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. > > Without even narrowing the definition to a "social ego," these > collective habits and conditionings are properly part of the ego using > the same definition I gave in the last post. > > >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. > > I would appreciate a fuller explanation of this. I don't understand you. > > > 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. > > lol. I like your examples... however, once again I don't fully > understand your point. What exactly are you suggesting changed between > the before and after in your example? > > Thanks. >
