|
Post by paul on Aug 4, 2011 12:42:59 GMT 9.5
It is an interesting question as to whether the Ego has a direct correspondence to particular components of the human body.
In the Kabbalah we find there are five levels of "soul" - Nephesh, Ruach, Neshama, Chaya, Yechidah. Is the Ego one of those?
Or is the Ego a foreign installation along the line of that suggested by Don Juan?
How then to investigate the nature of the Ego?
|
|
|
Post by tamrin on Aug 4, 2011 13:18:12 GMT 9.5
In what sense are you using the term "Ego?" The Freudian, the Theosophical, or something else? In any case, while one may find considering aspects of the self as seperate to be useful in a heuristic model of the self, it draws us away from an appreciation of our holistic, organic and spiritual reality.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Aug 4, 2011 13:34:26 GMT 9.5
I am using the term Ego in the sense it is used in the expression: kill out the ego
|
|
|
Post by tamrin on Aug 4, 2011 15:43:42 GMT 9.5
And what do you understand that sense to be?
Without some definition of what is otherwise an ambiguous term, the question is meaningless.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Aug 4, 2011 15:48:53 GMT 9.5
Here is a fairly standard approach: "Ego is nothing but pride in its inflated form. For example, an arrogant man is unduly or excessively proud of his wealth, status, learning, etc. He shows ego in spirit of conduct. He is unwarrantably overbearing and haughty. His head is swollen like the swelling caused by dropsy. He thinks very highly of himself and poorly of others. He claims much for himself and concedes little to others. " hinduism.about.com/od/selfdevelopment/a/how_to_kill_pride_ego.htm
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Aug 4, 2011 15:57:46 GMT 9.5
In that case killing the ego is easy... just mean it when you say to God "Thy will not mine, O Lord"
|
|
|
Post by tamrin on Aug 4, 2011 19:30:42 GMT 9.5
In that case killing the ego is easy... just mean it when you say to God "Thy will not mine, O Lord" Once defined some questions vitually answer themselves.
|
|
|
Post by tamrin on Aug 4, 2011 19:36:52 GMT 9.5
Attachment to the Ego in this Freudian sense tends to increase with an overly inflated and misguided sense of the nature (and source) of the lesser Siddhis, such as clairaudience.
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Aug 5, 2011 8:11:30 GMT 9.5
I shouldn't listen if God is talking to me - shock horror Where would we be if Moses had taken your advice?
;D
(Just playing with you Tamrin. Tickle tickle)
|
|
|
Post by tamrin on Aug 5, 2011 15:22:18 GMT 9.5
If there was an historical Moses, we may ask if:
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Aug 5, 2011 15:33:11 GMT 9.5
Moses could have been a Thutmoses you reckon?
|
|
|
Post by tamrin on Aug 5, 2011 17:48:33 GMT 9.5
The story of Moses could well derive from a tradition of Egyptian influence (the Levant was once the Egyptian province of Retjenu). The name "Moses" (the strained meaning in Hebrew is "to draw" and the Egyptian meaning is "born of") may well be part of a larger Egyptian name, such as Thutmose (Born of Thut), but not necessarily one of the pharaohs and might equally have had some other prefix. With the break down of Egyptian control over the Levant in the Third Intermediate Period (well after the time usually attributed to Moses), it became a place of refuge and exile from Egypt (the archaeological record shows waves of immigration not one huge influx). All the time Assyria was rising, but that is another story (with the Levant being caught in the middle).
|
|
|
Post by cwhite on Aug 17, 2011 11:16:52 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by paul on Aug 20, 2011 6:20:29 GMT 9.5
Given such an hallucinogenic origin for the ten commandments, it is remarkable that they have stayed in force for so long.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 20, 2011 21:05:46 GMT 9.5
Given such an hallucinogenic origin for the ten commandments, it is remarkable that they have stayed in force for so long. What in them was good was not new and what was new was not good.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 21, 2011 6:37:41 GMT 9.5
Before the Ten Commandments was the Law Code of Hammurabi and before them both were the 42 Negative Confessions to Ma'at (of which the Ten Commandments is considered by many to be an abridgment).
It is the description of the burning bush and the encounter with God which is thought to be delusional. Associating that garbled account with the Ten Commandments may be a spin by opportunistic priests.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Aug 21, 2011 7:06:16 GMT 9.5
It is the description of the burning bush and the encounter with God which is thought to be delusional.... Ancient traditions throughout the world document many such encounters with the gods. Modern times record similar events with believers making pilgrimages to those sites in hope of divine intervention. How then to test the reported events for objective existence?
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 21, 2011 7:30:27 GMT 9.5
Ancient traditions throughout the world document many such encounters with the gods. And lunacy is much more common than is often supposed. One test is to apply reason: Where traditions describe physical encounters with supernatural entities then the reasonable presumption is that they are wrong.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Aug 21, 2011 7:53:06 GMT 9.5
I am not sure that your "reasonable presumption" constitutes an objective test.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 21, 2011 8:44:12 GMT 9.5
It consitutes a rational test and, as rationality may be defined in non-subjective terms, it is objective.
|
|