Comment below: --- In [email protected], anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There is a difference between speaking about ego, I, Self etc. as if > these were real objects that could be pointed to meaningfully in an > abstract discussion, and speaking about one's "sense of self". A sense > of self is an experience, not an idea. By all appearances, it is a > very common experience, and the absence of it is not at all a common > experience. Does this have anything to do with what is "real"? > > --- In [email protected], "marekreavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > "The ego(self) is as real as the 'it' in 'It's raining.'" > > -- paraphrase from something posted last year on FFL > > No it at all. Just raining.
**END** If you spend any time trying to find that "sense of self" it proves to be maddeningly untraceable. We assume that there is a self, but if you investigate into the matter there doesn't seem to be one locatable. The atma vichara (self inquiry) that a number of folks here have recommended (as well as Ramana Maharishi and Nisargadatta, among others) is extraordinarily profound (and addictive). To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
