The idea that the ego vanishes is an umbrella concept, overly broad, since it covers more than one concept. The only thing that vanishes is the innate identification with ego. ... Assuming MMY was Self-Realized, it would be absurd to state that he had no projective or social ego. This ego is composed of innate, ongoing tendencies, including latent karma, that existed before Self-Realization and continues through until the body dies.
Thus, if MMY had some repressed sexual urges shoved underground by years of monkish behavior that only became expressed when circimstances provoked some response; well,...this can occur even after Self-Realization. It appears you are a Neo-Advaitin in the Ramana Maharshi school. I will state it outright: his claim as to the vanishing of the ego is incorrect. A more appropriate statement or statements would be found among the BATGAPPERS, especially those associated with the Waking Down School. The ego is simply recognized as an ongoing complex associated with the body/mind and is not the core Self. But it goes on and on and on...like the bunny battery. .. The notion that the projective ego (associated with the rising astrological sign and sun sign especially) vanishes is simply an urban Neo-Advaitic myth, mainly perpetuated by HWL Poonja and continued through his many disciples. FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mahavid3h <no_re...@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote: > > > > At the same time, if she could actually see herself as others see her it > > would probably too much for her to handle. After all, when you build an > > illusory world around yourself for most of your life, it's nigh on > > impossible to let it go, so you just keep moving.... > > Now that is an interesting question isn't it? Why would it be more > interesting for a person to see her/himself through the eyes of 'the' others, > than to see oneself through her/his own eyes? This reminds me of the 'mirror > stage', a stage in the childs development, when it sees itself the first time > in a mirror, as others see it. According to Jacques Lacan, a french > psychoanalysist and philosopher, it conceives itself as a *whole* for the > first time, while all subjective experiences before are only fragmented. In > this way, the perception of the others, the image of the child in the mirror, > becomes the self-image of the child, which correspondents to the formation of > the ego. > > This self image yet is derived from a location outside itself, the way the > 'others' see it. It is therefore also an alienation from itself. According to > Lacan, it is the 'I that is not the I', an imaginary I, as we in spiritual > terms would call it the ego, not the true Self. The ego, in this theory, is > the self reflected through the 'other', the other persons, who are not a > homogeneity, but a multitude. As the big Other, it becomes society, law, > which in psychoanalysis is represented by the father figure, which also > represents language. The 'appeal to majority' fallacy is certainly dirived > from the constant attempt to reflect and find oneself in the image of the > other. In the psychology of Lacan there is no way to objectify the 'other'. > It is an entirely imaginary unit of self-reflection. > > Apart from this, in yoga philosophy the Self is one unit, and entirely > within, always a whole, and the removal of the ego-sense, the self that is > reflected in the other, amounts to the final liberation. > > So, who is to decide what is the 'correct'view of oneself? The majority of > the 'others'. As there is no uniformity of opinion, not even on Judy Stein, > here on FFL, it i not even clear, as the majority of the lurkers may be > different than the majority of active posters. Or the sense of some ethical > values, social norms of this society, to which will be appealed, which are > again dependend on the country and the prevailing culture and the times. It > is difficult to see for people that the opinions they favour are to a great > deal derived from the prevailing culture, and that these ideals and values > greatly vary in other societies, let's say between India and the west. > Anyway, whats the point of this in yoga, seeing youreslf as the others see > you, especially if there are not THE others. > > But this is probably not what you wanted to say. >
