--Statement below: "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.
If that were true, Bevan, Hagelin, and the Rajas would have more brains. - In [email protected], "sandiego108" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "Jack Smith" > <jacksmith8121@> 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. >
