ED. Oohh, I love love it when you're so commanding. But actually, I wasn't "talking seriously" about anything. The definition you gave of 'ego' will do nicely tho.
Mike ________________________________ From: ED <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tue, 1 March, 2011 17:45:58 Subject: Re: [Zen] Change Mike, The outcomes of self-enquiry cannot be communicated without acommon understanding of key words used in describing the outcomes. It appears silly to talk so seriously about subjects when we we do not have a common agreement about what we are talking about. --ED --- In [email protected], mike brown <uerusuboyo@...> wrote: > > ED, > > I'd prefer self-inquiry over a wiki search, but yes, that definition will do > ; >) > > Mike > Mike, > You use this definition of 'ego', yes? > In spirituality, and especially nondual, mystical and eastern meditative > traditions, the human being is often conceived as being in the illusion of > individual existence, and separated from other aspects of creation. ... > en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego_(spirituality) > --ED > > ED, > > > > Yes, it is a Self-evident truth for those who have insight into the > > question > > 'Who am I?' or who have stopped falsely identifying with the ego. If there >is > > >no > > > > individual self and no thing that stands outside of existence - then what > > is > > left? I guess this is a bit of a trick question as we can't say what it is > >(what > > > > is named the Tao, isn't the Tao) - we can only work by negation (what we're > > not). > > > > Mike
