ahaMkAra vyAghra vyathitam (tormented by the tiger of ego)

[Guest guest]

namaste.

 

All of us are tormented by the tiger of ego to some extent or other.

Some may be tormented more and some may be tormented less. Blessed

are those who are free from this torment.

 

How do we know by how much we are tormented ? There is no quantitative

(or qualitative) measure. Shri Shankara says in VivekachUDAmaNi only

the person knows whether he/she is free from this torment. Others can

only guess whether a person is free from this terrible tiger.

 

However, there can be some clues. The English language uses the phrase

"thin-skinned" to describe people who cannot take criticism, take things

to heart too quickly and so on. These may be the candidates who are prey

to this tiger of ego much more. On the other hand, the SELF has the

thickest skin of all.

 

While this may not be a good gauge, it may still give indications of

how much we tamed this tiger.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

On 8/19/99 at 12:17 PM Gummuluru Murthy wrote:

>Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

>

>

>namaste.

>

>All of us are tormented by the tiger of ego to some extent or

other.

>Some may be tormented more and some may be tormented less.

Blessed

>are those who are free from this torment.

 

Those who are tormented badly are receiving a blessing in

disguise; only the combination of experience "ego based

activity doesn't lead to unconditional happiness" and

reasoning "conditions can never be or lead to the source of

happiness" will be able to wake one up from Maya.

>How do we know by how much we are tormented ? There is no

quantitative

>(or qualitative) measure. Shri Shankara says in

VivekachUDAmaNi only

>the person knows whether he/she is free from this torment.

Others can

>only guess whether a person is free from this terrible tiger.

 

The measure is always subjective. Objectivity could be called

conditioned collective subjectivity; the conditions for

collectivity always are restrictions. So being both sensitive

and intelligent is a boon; the torment will be felt before

severe damage has been brought about.

>However, there can be some clues. The English language uses

the phrase

>"thin-skinned" to describe people who cannot take criticism,

take things

>to heart too quickly and so on. These may be the candidates

who are prey

>to this tiger of ego much more. On the other hand, the SELF

has the

>thickest skin of all.

>

>While this may not be a good gauge, it may still give

indications of

>how much we tamed this tiger.

>

>Regards

>Gummuluru Murthy

 

At least in English, Dutch and German, having a thick skin

means indifference, insensitiveness, lethargy. So not very

positive. But the ones who will suffer most from ego are

those, who never are insulted, never have to take a blow,

never are criticized; because of their position. They will

never experience worldly life is only based on afflictions:

Ignorance, egoism, desire, aversion, fear. A tiger is always a

tiger. So no compromise; cut the ego at its root before the

tiger gets hungry...

 

Jan

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 19 Aug 1999, Jan Barendrecht wrote:

> "Jan Barendrecht" <janb

>

>

>

> On 8/19/99 at 12:17 PM Gummuluru Murthy wrote:

>

> >Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

> >

> >

> >namaste.

> >

> >All of us are tormented by the tiger of ego to some extent or

> other.

> >Some may be tormented more and some may be tormented less.

> Blessed

> >are those who are free from this torment.

>

> Those who are tormented badly are receiving a blessing in

> disguise; only the combination of experience "ego based

> activity doesn't lead to unconditional happiness" and

> reasoning "conditions can never be or lead to the source of

> happiness" will be able to wake one up from Maya.

>

 

 

namaste.

 

You seem to be saying in your first sentence above that the very

severe torment by the ego is a blessing in disguise. I am not sure

I agree with that assessment. Let me amplify.

 

Ego is a disease of the subtle body. Just like the gross body

is subject to various diseases, the subtle body also is inflicted

with the various diseases, of which the ego is the most severe.

 

Let us consider a disease of the gross body, like the TB. This

TB was not originally part of the gross body. But when conditions

were not hygenic, this disease takes its hold on the body and

spreads. When we know that the gross body is afflicted with this

disease, we(1) try to treat it, somehow purify the gross body so

that we can eradicate this TB germ in it. We cannot and would not

say the torment (by the TB) is a blessing in disguise.

 

Similarly, ego is a disease of the subtle body. It is

antahkaraNavr^tti, a modification of the internal sense organ.

Just like TB was not originally part of the gross body, ego was

also not an inherent part of the subtle body, but is external to

it and got a foothold in the subtle body when the subtle body was

not pure. When we(2) know that the subtle body is afflicted with

this disease, we try to treat it, purify the subtle body so that

the ego would not raise its ugly head.

 

The TB and ego, given a chance, will spread through and consume

the respective gross and subtle bodies, causing extensive torment.

Just like (correct) diagnosis is a major part of the treatment for

a gross body disease, if we *know* we are inflicted with the dreaded

disease of ego, that itself is a tremendous advancement in our

spiritual life.

 

[i used "we" in the above post in two contexts and labelled them

we(1) and we(2). What I mean by the we(1) is the Consciousness along

with the body, mind, intellect combination. We(2) is a bit more

difficult to define, but I would put it as the Consciousness

along with the body+mind+intellect combination without the ego.

I trust it makes sense.]

> >How do we know by how much we are tormented ? There is no

> quantitative

> >(or qualitative) measure. Shri Shankara says in

> VivekachUDAmaNi only

> >the person knows whether he/she is free from this torment.

> Others can

> >only guess whether a person is free from this terrible tiger.

>

> The measure is always subjective. Objectivity could be called

> conditioned collective subjectivity; the conditions for

> collectivity always are restrictions. So being both sensitive

> and intelligent is a boon; the torment will be felt before

> severe damage has been brought about.

>

> >However, there can be some clues. The English language uses

> the phrase

> >"thin-skinned" to describe people who cannot take criticism,

> take things

> >to heart too quickly and so on. These may be the candidates

> who are prey

> >to this tiger of ego much more. On the other hand, the SELF

> has the

> >thickest skin of all.

> >

> >While this may not be a good gauge, it may still give

> indications of

> >how much we tamed this tiger.

> >

> >Regards

> >Gummuluru Murthy

>

> At least in English, Dutch and German, having a thick skin

> means indifference, insensitiveness, lethargy. So not very

> positive. But the ones who will suffer most from ego are

> those, who never are insulted, never have to take a blow,

> never are criticized; because of their position. They will

> never experience worldly life is only based on afflictions:

> Ignorance, egoism, desire, aversion, fear. A tiger is always a

> tiger. So no compromise; cut the ego at its root before the

> tiger gets hungry...

>

 

My knowledge of the languages is limited. What I mean by thin-skinned

is: the person who is easily affected by the criticism; a person whose

emotions take a front and centre-seat. These early or quick affects

on emotions can be either to adverse criticism or to praise. The thing

that is responding to these is the ego; that is a person whose balance

is affected more quickly.

 

Your description of the phrase "thick-skin" above may be quite correct and

may be the one that is usually understood by "thick-skin". What I meant

by thick-skin in my last post was: the one who is impervious to either

scolding, criticism or praise. After all, it is the ego which responds

to these human interactions. If the response of the ego to these human

interactions is not quick, it means either the ego is in check or

absent.

> Jan

>

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

On 8/21/99 at 4:51 PM Gummuluru Murthy wrote:

>On Thu, 19 Aug 1999, Jan Barendrecht wrote:

>

>> "Jan Barendrecht" <janb

>>

>>

>>

>> On 8/19/99 at 12:17 PM Gummuluru Murthy wrote:

>>

>> >Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

>> >

>> >

>> >namaste.

>> >

>> >All of us are tormented by the tiger of ego to some extent

or

>> other.

>> >Some may be tormented more and some may be tormented less.

>> Blessed

>> >are those who are free from this torment.

>>

>> Those who are tormented badly are receiving a blessing in

>> disguise; only the combination of experience "ego based

>> activity doesn't lead to unconditional happiness" and

>> reasoning "conditions can never be or lead to the source of

>> happiness" will be able to wake one up from Maya.

>>

>

>

>namaste.

>

>You seem to be saying in your first sentence above that the

very

>severe torment by the ego is a blessing in disguise. I am not

sure

>I agree with that assessment. Let me amplify.

>

>Ego is a disease of the subtle body. Just like the gross body

>is subject to various diseases, the subtle body also is

inflicted

>with the various diseases, of which the ego is the most

severe.

 

Without a consensus about the meaning of ego, discussion would

be meaningless. According to the dictionary:

--------------

1. The self, especially as distinct from the world and other

selves.

2. In psychoanalysis, the division of the psyche that is

conscious, most immediately controls thought and behavior, and

is most in touch with external reality.

3. a. An exaggerated sense of self-importance; conceit. b.

Appropriate pride in oneself; self-esteem.

-------------

Regarding 1, without this function, life wouldn't exist; 1.

reveals itself as the instinct for survival. Even when the

myth of self has been dispelled, this doesn't mean when a

lorry is at a collision course with one, one won't jump aside

to avoid being hit; without 2. there would be no reaction at

all.

 

>Let us consider a disease of the gross body, like the TB.

This

>TB was not originally part of the gross body. But when

conditions

>were not hygenic, this disease takes its hold on the body and

>spreads. When we know that the gross body is afflicted with

this

>disease, we(1) try to treat it, somehow purify the gross body

so

>that we can eradicate this TB germ in it. We cannot and would

not

>say the torment (by the TB) is a blessing in disguise.

 

This comment could be called the wording of the survival

instinct. From the perspective of the bacteria, it is the

other way around; they "want" to survive, multiply etc. too...

Bacteria differ from man in that they have no

self-consciousness. They can't reflect on the nature of

conditioned existence that at one moment seems bright and at

the next moment looks dark.

>Similarly, ego is a disease of the subtle body. It is

>antahkaraNavr^tti, a modification of the internal sense

organ.

>Just like TB was not originally part of the gross body, ego

was

>also not an inherent part of the subtle body, but is external

to

>it and got a foothold in the subtle body when the subtle body

was

>not pure. When we(2) know that the subtle body is afflicted

with

>this disease, we try to treat it, purify the subtle body so

that

>the ego would not raise its ugly head.

 

The human body is already host to an impressive army of

bacteria that can cause disease; when immunity fails or the

environment causes an increase in the number of bacteria,

disease will follow. One could just as well call physical life

itself a disease as it always ends in death. If 1. is called

the cause of the survival instinct, 2. is operating in

"realized ones" as well. Brahman has no desires or feelings.

So what is the principle causing advaitins like Sankara

undertake the task of restoring Advaita to its original

purity?

>The TB and ego, given a chance, will spread through and

consume

>the respective gross and subtle bodies, causing extensive

torment.

>Just like (correct) diagnosis is a major part of the

treatment for

>a gross body disease, if we *know* we are inflicted with the

dreaded

>disease of ego, that itself is a tremendous advancement in

our

>spiritual life.

 

The easiest way to avoid TB would be only consuming

unprocessed natural food; it causes immunity to be in a

position to deactivate the germs before they can cause harm.

But those visiting a doctor want medicine to continue "life as

usual" whether it is causing disease or not; for some the

taste of smoking is worthwhile the risk. The torment is always

self-inflicted, be it through ignorance or presumption.

Likewise, many so called primitive societies could live with

ego, in harmony with the environment. Things get "wrong" when

3. sets in - leading to insatiable desires, the gratification

of which is destroying an entire ecosystem.

>[i used "we" in the above post in two contexts and labelled

them

>we(1) and we(2). What I mean by the we(1) is the

Consciousness along

>with the body, mind, intellect combination. We(2) is a bit

more

>difficult to define, but I would put it as the Consciousness

>along with the body+mind+intellect combination without the

ego.

>I trust it makes sense.]

>

>> >How do we know by how much we are tormented ? There is no

>> quantitative

>> >(or qualitative) measure. Shri Shankara says in

>> VivekachUDAmaNi only

>> >the person knows whether he/she is free from this torment.

>> Others can

>> >only guess whether a person is free from this terrible

tiger.

>>

>> The measure is always subjective. Objectivity could be

called

>> conditioned collective subjectivity; the conditions for

>> collectivity always are restrictions. So being both

sensitive

>> and intelligent is a boon; the torment will be felt before

>> severe damage has been brought about.

>>

>> >However, there can be some clues. The English language

uses

>> the phrase

>> >"thin-skinned" to describe people who cannot take

criticism,

>> take things

>> >to heart too quickly and so on. These may be the

candidates

>> who are prey

>> >to this tiger of ego much more. On the other hand, the

SELF

>> has the

>> >thickest skin of all.

>> >

>> >While this may not be a good gauge, it may still give

>> indications of

>> >how much we tamed this tiger.

>> >

>> >Regards

>> >Gummuluru Murthy

>>

>> At least in English, Dutch and German, having a thick skin

>> means indifference, insensitiveness, lethargy. So not very

>> positive. But the ones who will suffer most from ego are

>> those, who never are insulted, never have to take a blow,

>> never are criticized; because of their position. They will

>> never experience worldly life is only based on afflictions:

>> Ignorance, egoism, desire, aversion, fear. A tiger is

always a

>> tiger. So no compromise; cut the ego at its root before the

>> tiger gets hungry...

>>

>

>My knowledge of the languages is limited. What I mean by

thin-skinned

>is: the person who is easily affected by the criticism; a

person whose

>emotions take a front and centre-seat. These early or quick

affects

>on emotions can be either to adverse criticism or to praise.

The thing

>that is responding to these is the ego; that is a person

whose balance

>is affected more quickly.

 

One has to go one step further; another factor is sensitivity.

With a high sensitivity, reaction can be swift wheres with a

low sensitivity, a strong stimulus has to be received. With a

high sensitivity, ego can be perceived as a burden before it

starts causing harm. Ego or the possibility to react is a mark

of all creatures (perhaps of matter/energy itself), but

without self-consciousness the ego cannot be dissolved.

>

>Your description of the phrase "thick-skin" above may be

quite correct and

>may be the one that is usually understood by "thick-skin".

What I meant

>by thick-skin in my last post was: the one who is impervious

to either

>scolding, criticism or praise. After all, it is the ego which

responds

>to these human interactions. If the response of the ego to

these human

>interactions is not quick, it means either the ego is in

check or

>absent.

 

Regarding diseases, the worst one is the ego itself, as it

will take many bodies in succession to the grave, whereas any

other disease takes just one body down. Taking the above

definition of ego, the elimination of 1. means factual

nonduality (the proverbial "having cut the ego at its root")

which is easy, whereas the elimination of 2. will be partial

during the life of the body and even that is rare; when all

transformations have been completed only the senses of seeing,

hearing and volitional thinking keep on functioning as long as

the body remains alive.

>> Jan

>>

>

>Regards

>Gummuluru Murthy

>-----------------------------

----------