Another Anon has comments inserted below. --- In [email protected], a_non_moose_ff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > If someone is having "enlightenment" experiences or is > > stabilized as Self and talks about an ego, I don't > > doubt their experiences, I just wonder what it is they > > are referring to when they say "ego." When I say in > > enlightenmernt that there is no ego what I mean is > > that there is no subjective self. There is no "me". > > The pronoun "me" or "I" doesn't refer to anything. The > > mind looks for something and there is nothing there, > > literally. In waking state the mind turns inward and > > experiences a thought/feeling sense of an individual; > > a private "me." This is what disappears in CC. There > > is just consciousness and then everything else > > (objective and subjective). You could say, "I am pure > > consciousness", but the problem with this is that > > there is no "I" to be or not to be anything. There is > > just consciousness and objects that are not > > consciousness. Thoughts and feelings are there, but > > there is no "I" having these or taking ownership of > > these subjective experiences. > > > All that is good and fine.
^^^^^ So that means that you accept Peter at his word for what his experience is? What about the others (Tom T, Michael G, Jim, Rory, other?) In other words, are you expressing doubts only about the terminology used and the universality and/or significance of their experiences? or are you also expressing doubts about what they say are their experiences as well? In my own case, I experience a subjective sense of localized individual self, and have trouble imagining what it would be like to be conscious and functional and not have that subjective sense. On the other hand, people report not having this sense, and don't report it as a liability or a psychologically or neurologically dysfunctional condition. Rather, they report it as some kind of more "realized" improvement over having a subjective sense of localized individual self. So I'm inclined to have an open mind on this as a possibility. I was wondering where you stood on this. I am just pointing out, as I have > periodically over the past several years, is that some other > self-proclaimed enlightened, such as M, Goodman, have argued at length > that a "self" and "ego" and sense of individuality do exist in > enlightenemnt. ^^^^^ I like Peter's question "What's an ego?" It's a noun, so I suppose it's an object, but where is it to be found?. So many different systems for understanding human beings have come up with so many different definitions for the term "ego" or for somewhat equivalent terms. The term ego is used here without much reference to definitions. As a consequence, I find discussions on the general topic of "the ego's existence or non-existence in various states of human functioning" to be muddled to begin with, even before introducing the question of the authenticity of claims to "enlightenment." > > My point is that you each appear to be i) defining elightenment > differently and ii) are 'experiencing' different things, and thus to > both use the same term "enlightenment" to describe your "states", > makes the term meaningless, and contributes to very muddled language, > discussion and "understandings". > > Further, I continue to point out that if you have no sense of "ego" > and yet still feel "insulted" at times, then there probably a > cognitive error going on. Feeling insulted is a diminishment of the > sense of ego. If you feel such, ergo, within the Peter-sphere, there > must be an ego. But that you may be blind to it, like an eye trying to > see itself. ^^^^^ I wonder if you are open to the possibility that you are wrong on this, that Peter is not having a cognitive error, and that the feeling of being insulted does not necessarily imply that "within the Peter-sphere, there must be an ego." I'm not sure that the kinds of shifts of state as the one that Peter has described can be subjected to the kind of logical analysis that you provided with reasonable assurance that the logical conclusions have any merit. Maybe logic is the handmaiden of state and not the other way around. On the other hand, maybe you are right about Peter being blind to something. After all, if he is right about being in "CC" (in the most general sense, ie. not as an "official" state, but as a general way of describing the vicinity of his state in the galaxy of all possible states), then by his own definition (MMY's really), his knowledge of himself is incomplete. I have been exposed to various points of view on the topic of "no- ego." It seems that some schools are into the notion that the more transcendental one becomes, the more "enlightened" he/she is. Such schools will express that a no-ego state is superior to a state with ego. On the other hand, maybe TOTALITY means, you can have it all - be transcendental and localized and everything else at the same time. I remember a line from MMY's 3 days of checking that went something like "the very fact that intelligence is cosmic demonstrates that it is not devoid of being located as an individual structure" (or something like that). Given the diversity of opinions, I'm inclined to find my own. What's yours? ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/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/
