--- In [email protected], "Jack Smith"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], Bhairitu <noozguru@> wrote:
> >
> > Jack Smith 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.
> > >
> > Even MMY once said the only people without egos are dead
people. There
> > still has to be some remains of ignorance.
> >
> > Once when one of my employees said he had no ego, I
asked, "should I be
> > contacting your next of kin?" :)
> >
>
> It seems to me that MMY could only have been speaking of ahamkar
which
> is often translated as ego. However, there are ancient traditions
that
> hold it as a truth that the pathological ego (what we normally call
> ego) can be completely (or, if we want to hedge, nearly completely)
> let go.
>
> Understanding the difference between something that gives us
> individual self-awareness (ahamkar) and something that arises from
the
> mistake of the intellect (pathological ego) is critical. I do not
> think MMY ever addressed this in any detail. (It might be due to
the
> fact that MMY remained a megalomaniac himself and therefore wasn't
> able to see the pathological ego clearly. ;)
>
Besides being a megalomaniac the reason MMY never got into the
different experiences of the ego is that TM is an effective enough
technique that with steady practice all such questions get sorted
out and cleared up. Or you quit. Or you get neurotic. So no need to
talk much about it.
