--- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Oct 12, 2005, at 2:39 PM, Peter wrote: > > > This is one of the clearest responses articulating the > > condition of "I" after realization. It's brilliant. > > Wondering what happens to the "I" in enlightenment is > > like asking what happens to the knot after it's > > untied; what happens to the darkness when the light is > > turned on. What happens is that they no longer exist. > > They are not accounted for because they cease to > > be...."assimilated, silenced, replaced" by no-thing! > > > >> Answer: There is great difficulity in describing a > >> condition that is > >> not within the experiental reality of the ego, and > >> especially in > >> answering a question the asking of which stems from > >> the dualistic > >> paradigm of reality of the questioner. An > >> enlightened being *is* their > >> condition; thus, there is no purpose to make a > >> 'claim'. That is an ego > >> view. > >> > >> The personal self does not become enlightened or > >> transformed but > >> instead is assimilated, silenced, and replaced by a > >> different > >> condition altogether. > >> > >> Implied in the common saying that we are discussing > >> is the belief that > >> to disclaim being enlightened is a form of modesty. > >> This is a > >> projection of the spiritual ego of the originator of > >> such a statement > >> for in the condition of enlightenment, no egotism > >> remains. The state > >> is merely a simple fact; it is not an achievment. It > >> has no merits or > >> anything which is laudatory that would require the > >> posture of > >> pseudo-humility. In the naive spiritual community, > >> there is much > >> adulation, charismatic glamour, and the importance > >> attributed to > >> 'enlightened masters', and the like.These are > >> projections. To the > >> enlightened being, the state is merely the natural > >> condition of how it is. > > From my POV it represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the > eastern experience of "ahamkara" (translated often as "ego") and the > Freudian, psychological or New Age idea of "ego". The two are not the > same, although many assume they are. When you lose ahamkara, you lose > the ability to identify with your body. In laymen's terms, you die. > In general, organs and cells don't like it.
**** It puzzles me also, why people, when they stop identifying the 'I' with an image of one's personal self, say there is no 'I' anymore. The `I' is the subject, who feels, sees, interprets and evaluates situations, makes meaning, uses concepts like enlightenment in communication, relates to others, is in dialogue with others. The fact that something is being perceived is based on subject/object dualism. The perceiver is subject, the perceived is object. The `I', the subject, cannot see itself. If it can, there is an error in interpreting. The subject can see only something that is object to itself. In enlightenment this error vanishes. And another error seems to appear, the idea that there is no `I'. Irmeli > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 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/
