Ego is not the same as the sense of individuality

[saurab]

Many enlightened masters especially from India have stated that with enlightenment the sense of individuality disappears. But that is not true because they mistakenly take the ego to be the sense of individuality (a mistake that is extremely easy to make).

Here is an article on this subject: http://spiritweb.in/teachings/pathwo...e-after-death/.

[HITESH SHAH]

Originally Posted by saurab

Many enlightened masters especially from India have stated that with enlightenment the sense of individuality disappears. But that is not true because they mistakenly take the ego to be the sense of individuality (a mistake that is extremely easy to make).

If enlightened masters make easy mistakes, a question may come are they really enlightened. You may quote any specific ones. There may be context to it.

Nevrtherless the individuality with its narrow-prejudiced borders and biased perceptions do become weak/ thin/ blurred with enlightnment . Still the sense of individuality is retained by enlightened masters to serve its best adminstrative efficacy purpose (without negative side effects) . This sense of individuality however does not cloud his/her value judgment in narrow parochial lines.

PS - Portal has nice collection of quotes and teaching. It's wonderful. Keep enhancing it.

[saurab]

Originally Posted by HITESH SHAH

If enlightened masters make easy mistakes, a question may come are they really enlightened. You may quote any specific ones. There may be context to it.

The Buddha made the mistake of saying that there is no God. The Buddha made the mistake of saying that there is no self existing by it's own power, independent of other things. The Buddha made the mistake of not allowing for women to be his disciples during the early phase of his teaching career because he considered women to be inferior to men. Krishna made the mistake of influencing the Pandavas to kill their own brothers, uncles and gurus just for a piece of land to rule over. People think that it was a war for justice, but that is just a euphemism for greed for power. Krishna made the mistake of stealing the clothes of his women friends, the gopis, so he could enjoy seeing them nude. If someone else with not a great reputation as Krishna had done that, we would call him wicked and lustful. Krishna made the mistake of calling women as being born of a paap yoni (sinful womb). Krishna made the mistake of popularizing the caste system in India/Bharat of old. Ramakrishna made the mistake of saying that it is wrong to have sex if you want to progress spiritually. Shiva made the mistake of tearing off the head of Brahma when he got angry.

Are you sure great or enlightened people dont make mistakes ? Many enlightened masters in past births long ago were wicked people. THen they changes and gradually became better and better. But that does not mean that the enlightened master is "perfect". When I was young and saw the image of the Buddha with serene face sitting in meditative absorption, even I was inspired and thought that he was perfect. But the fact is that no one except for a handful of people like Jesus and maybe some very few others are either perfect or close to it.

[HITESH SHAH]

Yes enlightened masters before enlightenment can be wicket , lazy , casual diffident ,ignorant even fraudulent . But once they attain enlightenment all these becomes a matter of past . There are umpteen examples in the world of people with sinful history yet developing good heart/character after realization of their mistakes .

Originally Posted by saurab

The Buddha made the mistake of saying that there is no God. The Buddha made the mistake of saying that there is no self existing by it's own power, independent of other things.

Extreme materialistic people simply can not understand something spiritual. To explain them 'No self' is the best answer . Hindus of Buddha's time were extremely ritualistic and materialistic . So I think this the best thing He could do this to explain something spiritual.

Originally Posted by saurab

The Buddha made the mistake of not allowing for women to be his disciples during the early phase of his teaching career because he considered women to be inferior to men.

It's not question of inferiority superiority . It's question of suitability/practicality . Even in extremely developed society , females make sure about their overall safety before they take up any job/assignment/learning as compared to males. And this is perfectly ok if males/females have safe interactions rather than predatory one.

Originally Posted by saurab

Krishna made the mistake of influencing the Pandavas to kill their own brothers, uncles and gurus just for a piece of land to rule over. People think that it was a war for justice, but that is just a euphemism for greed for power.

It was about greater good of greater number sentients over a very long period of time and not just a small kingdom.

Originally Posted by saurab

Krishna made the mistake of stealing the clothes of his women friends, the gopis, so he could enjoy seeing them nude. If someone else with not a great reputation as Krishna had done that, we would call him wicked and lustful.

Many of such writings are allegorical and His age at such times was around 6-8 years. One can easily observe nothing wrong here. Internet web pages may searches may not always get u authentic info on such matters.

Originally Posted by saurab

Krishna made the mistake of calling women as being born of a paap yoni (sinful womb).

It's not generalization . Females are more at the risk of lures / fear giving rise to sin .

Originally Posted by saurab

Krishna made the mistake of popularizing the caste system in India/Bharat of old.

Original Indian caste system which Krishna and others advocated is 4 corner specialization with service orientation,excellence and co-operation . There was absolute equality here . There was contextual leadership and importance which is absolutely correct . IF u study Myers and Briggs personality types and their occupational suitability , it exactly matches 4 castes (occupational ) mind set . Later day Brahmins however exploited this and turned 'Shudra' to 'Kshudra' thereby creating a caste system with worst inequality . Ad rightly current govts and constitutions rightly provide reservations such earlier oppressed classes to compensate for earlier sins of Indian upper castes . But u can see here the system not followed correctly . You can see wherever/whenever such 4 corner specialization with service orientation,excellence and co-operation is practiced at whatever level , people /nations/families/companies have prospered . So the people to blame here are people who di not understand and not the one visualized it correctly.

Originally Posted by saurab

Ramakrishna made the mistake of saying that it is wrong to have sex if you want to progress spiritually.

Being celibate himself we should excuse him for this . All he means there should be limit on one's sexual urges for easy spiritual pursuit. Even today all religious people of almost all denominations , recommend regulated sexual urge which is just fine for normal people also . It's like salt you neither have less not more - just the adequate quantity

Originally Posted by saurab

But the fact is that no one except for a handful of people like Jesus and maybe some very few others are either perfect or close to it.

That's very great . Finally you go someone whom u find perfect . Very happy for u . Jesus is my Hero too.

[saurab]

Originally Posted by HITESH SHAH

Extreme materialistic people simply can not understand something spiritual. To explain them 'No self' is the best answer . Hindus of Buddha's time were extremely ritualistic and materialistic . So I think this the best thing He could do this to explain something spiritual.

the buddha did not just explain that there is no self. he himself believed in it. also why do you think that "explaining no self" is the best thing to do to those who are extremely ritualistic ? He could have just been satisfied with saying that rituals are no good.

also, he explained the no self theory not just to materialistic people. He explained it also to Kashyap and Ananda and Moggallana and Sariputta who were highly advanced and performed no rituals.

[HITESH SHAH]

Originally Posted by saurab

the buddha did not just explain that there is no self. he himself believed in it. also why do you think that "explaining no self" is the best thing to do to those who are extremely ritualistic ? He could have just been satisfied with saying that rituals are no good.

'No self is grand daddy of lies can perhaps explain Buddha's stand on it . When he felt that disciple is not capable to understand or is not sincere enough for answer , he avoided the questions .

Nevertheless you can carry on with your ideas about Buddha.

Re Krishna and Shiva you have lot of wrong facts . I can understand your opinions and observations as you were born Hindu . But let me tell you all this is based on disputed & biased opinions. However if holding on to these wrong perception gives you satisfaction, please hold onto it by all means .
It is a different matter Jesus may not like such negative attitudes towards other revered figures.

Re Avatar doctrine - if there is No God incarnated on this earth in human flesh then there is no "Son of a God " or "Messenger of a God" in human flesh possible . There are no proofs . Hope you get the underlying theologies and it appeals to your intellect and freedom to think logically and express it .

[sky]

Originally Posted by saurab

the buddha did not just explain that there is no self. he himself believed in it

Can you point out please in which Sutta/Sutra the Buddha said there is 'no self'.
Thanks....

[hazada guess]

I'd be glad to say goodbye to my ego, but the sense if I in my opinion (own awareness) will remain.

[Miss Hepburn]

Originally Posted by hazada guess

I'd be glad to say goodbye to my ego, but the sense if I in my opinion (own awareness) will remain.

Well, you can start with baby steps, make a plan.
Say goodbye to the parts or aspects of the ego that cause you trouble, stress or pain?

Example from the ego we get jealousy, anger, hatred, separation from God and all that exist, greed, selfishness,
depression, indignation, vengeful thoughts, discouragement,
despair, self loathing, worry, fear, doubt, guilt and pride, and so on.

Pick one a week -say, pride...and when it comes into your thoughts or emotions, say, "Oh no, nope, I'm not letting you in. Nope,
you're not tricking me to feel this awful, lower ego feeling. No way."

And when it seeps in again for a week, do that again and again.
Then, go to another that troubles you for a week.

I started with worry in Jan 2006...boy during a 2 week period was I surprised to become aware of HOW much worry crept into my brain!
My thoughts!
And what it felt like...(I had a lot to worry about, too...as we all can have...''I'm gonna be late, I don't have enough
money, I don't have health ins''...whatever!"
I haven't had worry since then...IF a thought were to seep in of some silly worry?
I laugh at it - and say to God within me,"HA! That was NOT my thought...I have nothing to worry about."
Phfft...gone.

[alanantic]

Originally Posted by hazada guess

I'd be glad to say goodbye to my ego, but the sense if I in my opinion (own awareness) will remain.

To be a living being ("I am“) is not the ultimate state; there is something beyond, much more wonderful, which is neither being nor not-being, neither living nor not living. It is a state of awareness, beyond the limitations of space and time. The same source of the will (desire) to live, a source deeper even than life itself. The 'I' is there even without the 'am'. -- Shri Nisargadatta Maharaj