Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org
Sign in to follow this  
sailu

What is Ego? please clarify!

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Guest Melvin1

 

Obviously, you seem to have some idea that ego in itself is a derogatory term.

It is not. It is Latin for "I" and also means "self".

 

Don't get ego confused with false ego.

False ego is the illusory conception that the body is the self or that the mind or intelligence is the self.

Real ego is to know oneself as spirit soul - part and parcel of Krishna.

 

If Krishna didn't have an ego he would not exist as the ego is the self.

 

Look at the dictionary definition and try to understand, then you won't be asking for some shastric proof that Krishna has an ego.

If you can just understand the meaning of the word it will all be clear to you.

 

 

 

It is so elementary that the idea of requiring shastric proof that Krishna has an ego is ridiculous.

 

Can you describe to me what`s Id and Super ego?

 

If Krsna also possesses a super ego, the latter must be greater than the former.

 

-----

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Can you describe to me what`s Id and Super ego?

 

If Krsna also possesses a super ego, the latter must be greater than the former.

 

-----

 

No. I have never heard of those terms in the books of Srila Prabhupada.

Ego is one's conception of oneself.

False ego is the conception that the living entity is the material body and mind.

When the living entity becomes situated in proper spiritual life of devotional service then he becomes freed from false ego and he is established in his real ego of being a part and parcel of the Supreme Absolute as an integrated component.

 

I have never heard Srila Prabhupada refer to any thing as you say the "super-ego".

There is false ago of material identification and there is real ego of realizing oneself as an eternal part and parcel of Krishna, the supreme absolute.

 

There is no "superego".

There is false ego and real ego.

 

Krishna's ego is that he is a cowherd boy the lover of Srimati Radharani.

 

Real ego is all a part of the spiritual character of the liberated souls and devotees.

 

Some are parents of Krishna, some are friends, lovers etc.

Ego is the spiritual identity of the soul as an eternal devotee of Krishna in one rasa or another.

 

False ego is some illusory self-conception of being something other than a servant of Krishna.

 

That is an illusion.

That is false ego.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sri KRsna's ego.mind,intelligence,senses and His karma indriya(hands,feet,etc.) are He Himself.

 

Svecha pad prithah vapuh.

 

- Srimad Bhagavatam.

 

Due to limitation imposed by language,the above verse has to explained as,"Bhagavan Himself BECOMES His body."

 

It's not so much as ego as it is SVARUPA.

 

Svarupa means the personality Sri Krsna.He has His ego,Mind,Intelligence and senses.This is His Svarupa,inconcievable and unattainable except through His mercy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong topic. Wrong-headed discussion.

 

Sigmund Freud wrote a little paper about, what, 39 "neurotic" housewives of failed WWI German Army officers.

 

His "fame" was that the invention of the pseudo-science "social sciences" were to benefit Hitler's Germany, and did. He did not "invent" that: he was "used".

 

Read the Preface to the 2nd Edition, Totems and Taboos by Sigmund Freud.

 

He was astonished he got so much attention.

 

If you like to go on and on talking about Ego, ID and Super-ego, go ahead.

 

However, it will not be a "spiritual discussion" except if you let it drop.

 

If "someone" were knowledgeable in the nuances of language, it would never have been "translated" to the word ego.

 

The fact is, a "translator" also needs to "translate" according to the connotations and denotations of a language. If a singular word will not "fit" then it is more correct to write a paragraph, or have a footnote explanation.

 

Ego is not the self, not the Self and certainly not the higher Self.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Melvin1

 

No. I have never heard of those terms in the books of Srila Prabhupada.

Ego is one's conception of oneself.

False ego is the conception that the living entity is the material body and mind.

When the living entity becomes situated in proper spiritual life of devotional service then he becomes freed from false ego and he is established in his real ego of being a part and parcel of the Supreme Absolute as an integrated component.

 

I have never heard Srila Prabhupada refer to any thing as you say the "super-ego".

There is false ago of material identification and there is real ego of realizing oneself as an eternal part and parcel of Krishna, the supreme absolute.

 

There is no "superego".

There is false ego and real ego.

 

Krishna's ego is that he is a cowherd boy the lover of Srimati Radharani.

 

Real ego is all a part of the spiritual character of the liberated souls and devotees.

 

Some are parents of Krishna, some are friends, lovers etc.

Ego is the spiritual identity of the soul as an eternal devotee of Krishna in one rasa or another.

 

False ego is some illusory self-conception of being something other than a servant of Krishna.

 

That is an illusion.

That is false ego.

 

 

Super-ego is the faculty that seeks to police what it deems unacceptable desires. It represents all moral restrictions and is the advocate of striving towards perfection.

 

What is ego? (http://deoxy.org/egofalse.htm)

 

" Only a person who has no ego is for the first time a master; he is no longer a slave. That the real center(not ego) is the soul, the self, the god, the truth, or whatsoever you want to call it. It is nameless, so all names are good. You can give it any name of your liking."

FROM Beyond the Frontier of the Mind by Osho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Melvin1

 

Thanks to all!

now I know....it is not this body, not this mind, not me......

it is only thee!

 

-

 

You are always welcome, Sailu.

 

Note: In our visayan dialect, saylo or sailu is a word which means going beyond of what is the limit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Super-ego is the faculty that seeks to police what it deems unacceptable desires. It represents all moral restrictions and is the advocate of striving towards perfection.

 

What is ego? (http://deoxy.org/egofalse.htm)

 

" Only a person who has no ego is for the first time a master; he is no longer a slave. That the real center(not ego) is the soul, the self, the god, the truth, or whatsoever you want to call it. It is nameless, so all names are good. You can give it any name of your liking."

FROM Beyond the Frontier of the Mind by Osho

 

That is not from the teachings of Srila Prabhupada or the Gaudiya tradition.

If you want to go outside the Gaudiya teachings and pull up something to support your point, you should not expect that the Krishna devotees will accept it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Melvin1

 

That is not from the teachings of Srila Prabhupada or the Gaudiya tradition.

If you want to go outside the Gaudiya teachings and pull up something to support your point, you should not expect that the Krishna devotees will accept it.

 

How Gaudiya teachings evolved was because the scribes who authored these teachings were open to other ideas. If an idea connects or is directly or indirectly related to Krsnah then it`s absorbed say, into the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How Gaudiya teachings evolved was because the scribes who authored these teachings were open to other ideas. If an idea connects or is directly or indirectly related to Krsnah then it`s absorbed say, into the system.

 

Well........... no......... you are quite wrong.

In fact the Gaudiya sampradaya is very strict about not taking theories and ideas from outside.

What you have said cannot be supported by any evidence such as the written teachings of any Gaudiya acharya.

In fact it is mental speculation, a fabrication.

Sorry, but your statement is incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Melvin1

 

Well........... no......... you are quite wrong.

In fact the Gaudiya sampradaya is very strict about not taking theories and ideas from outside.

What you have said cannot be supported by any evidence such as the written teachings of any Gaudiya acharya.

In fact it is mental speculation, a fabrication.

Sorry, but your statement is incorrect.

 

This knowledge( science of Krsnah consciousness) was instructed to Ishvaku then to Manu, so and so forth. Along the way, however, this transfer of knowledge was broken. Now, we are picking up the bits and pieces. Try to analyze the Dhruva story and what was he really looking for, a piece of land, a piece of broken glass, or was it a piece of broken information or data?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This knowledge( science of Krsnah consciousness) was instructed to Ishvaku then to Manu, so and so forth. Along the way, however, this transfer of knowledge was broken. Now, we are picking up the bits and pieces. Try to analyze the Dhruva story and what was he really looking for, a piece of land, a piece of broken glass, or was it a piece of broken information or data?

 

There are no bits and pieces Melvin.

Lord Krishna taught the same thing again to Arjuna and it is all in the Bhagavad-gita.

 

What he taught to the Sun god millions of years ago and lost was again revived on the battlefield of Kurukshetra and Arjuna was the recipient.

 

You can get the same benefit that Arjuna received if you just study the Bhagavad-gita as it comes down in the disciplic succession from Lord Krishna.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Melvin1

 

There are no bits and pieces Melvin.

Lord Krishna taught the same thing again to Arjuna and it is all in the Bhagavad-gita.

 

What he taught to the Sun god millions of years ago and lost was again revived on the battlefield of Kurukshetra and Arjuna was the recipient.

 

You can get the same benefit that Arjuna received if you just study the Bhagavad-gita as it comes down in the disciplic succession from Lord Krishna.

 

Yes I know, Sonic Yogi. That Srila Vyasadeva was the scribe who wrote the story. But still we have yet to hear in full what these great souls(mahajanas) have to say about the science of Krsnah consciousness They are Lord Siva, Narada Muni, Dhruva, Kapila, the Kumaras, Bhisma, Yamaraja, Sukadeva Goswami, etc. In fact, Touchstone Narada has summarized it ( the bits and pieces) in his Narada-pancaratra:That Vedic knowledge, rituals and mantras can all be summed up into just 8 words, " Hare Krsnah Hare Krsnah Krsnah Krsnah Hare Hare."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes I know, Sonic Yogi. That Srila Vyasadeva was the scribe who wrote the story. But still we have yet to hear in full what these great souls(mahajanas) have to say about the science of Krsnah consciousness They are Lord Siva, Narada Muni, Dhruva, Kapila, the Kumaras, Bhisma, Yamaraja, Sukadeva Goswami, etc. In fact, Touchstone Narada has summarized it ( the bits and pieces) in his Narada-pancaratra:That Vedic knowledge, rituals and mantras can all be summed up into just 8 words, " Hare Krsnah Hare Krsnah Krsnah Krsnah Hare Hare."

 

There are no bits and pieces Melvin.

Krishna is the Supreme Absolute Truth.

That is not a bit or a piece, it is the complete truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Melvin1

 

There are no bits and pieces Melvin.

Krishna is the Supreme Absolute Truth.

That is not a bit or a piece, it is the complete truth.

 

Are individual souls not bits and pieces of the Supreme Soul, Krsnah?:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's very important to note that svayam Bhagavan Sri Krsna appears once every day of Brahmadeva.

In every Dwapara(usuallu treta),The Sri Krsna who appears is an avatara like Parasurama,Varaha etc.

But this time,Bhagavan Himself,with all His expansions descended.So the knowledge that was imparted to Arjuna was certainly nothing less if not anything more than the knowledge that was imparted to Ikshvaku.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Are individual souls not bits and pieces of the Supreme Soul, Krsnah?

PART AND PARCEL SHOULD BE USED IF YOU FOLLOW GAUDIYA.

BY THE WAY CAN ANYONE EXPLAIN THE TERM PART AND PARCEL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

PART AND PARCEL SHOULD BE USED IF YOU FOLLOW GAUDIYA.

BY THE WAY CAN ANYONE EXPLAIN THE TERM PART AND PARCEL

 

part and parcel

 

<form name="entry" method="post" action="/dictionary"> One entry found.

<input name="book" value="Dictionary" type="hidden"> <input name="quer" value="part and parcel" type="hidden"> <input name="jump" type="hidden"> <input name="list" value="va:1,0,0,0|part and parcel=115274785" type="hidden">

</form> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/part%20and%20parcel

<dl><dt class="hwrd">Main Entry:</dt><dd class="hwrd"> part and parcel </dd><dt class="func">Function:</dt><dd class="func">noun </dd><dt class="date">Date:</dt><dd class="date">15th century</dd></dl> : an essential or integral component ........>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit is a binary unit and piece is an item. A little bit of soap or I`m a piece of God`s work. That`s what I meant about bits and pieces. Why stick to part and parcel when there are bits and pieces to speak of?:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A bit is a binary unit and piece is an item. A little bit of soap or I`m a piece of God`s work. That`s what I meant about bits and pieces. Why stick to part and parcel when there are bits and pieces to speak of?:)

 

<!-- / message -->

if you say pieces it means god will be incomplete without us the souls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

if you say pieces it means god will be incomplete without us the souls.

 

If we get a parcel from God does it mean He is now incomplete? Similarly, if we get a piece from God does it mean He, too, becomes incomplete?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

an essential or integral component ........>

 

<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

yes even i thought that part and parcel meantt something the same but look at the definition above

<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...