Quote:
|
Originally Posted by youngnostic
I guess what I should've reiterated was what I understand 'ego' to mean and most people generally mean when they refer to themselves having an ego: a part of themselves that's not real or illusory i.e. Here's my real self, my egoless self, and here's another box next to it, this ego, that's not me, but is my achilles heel... and I don't see myself as that... I take myself to be a complete person, a human, with natural flaws as part of our evolution on this planet but I don't see those flawed characteristics as being ego, simply being unevolved chemical processes.
|
My philosophical brain just kicked into gear.
So, you are saying that which is non-absolute is absolute, because nothing can exist apart from the absolute....i.e. Maya
is Brahman?
Of
course it is, but Brahman still remains as Brahman irrespective of Maya, so that which is 'not ego' will still exist as being 'not ego' irrespective
of ego, even though it
is ego. lol
It's sort of like people worshiping God, knowing full well they are God, so what are they worshiping?
When those 'chemical processes' fully evolve, ego will still be ego - but then again, if you have the direct realisation that ego = Brahman, ego won't exist anymore, as that which is 'beyond ego' will simply lose the whole self-association with the concept of an egoic principle, whether you perceive it or not.
Am I going too deep for you?