XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: tanghuyen@gmail.com   
      
   On 10/28/2016 6:15 PM, brian mitchell wrote:   
      
   > I think the ego is also preverbal. The raw sense of ME. Its expression   
   > may be refined and modified through words, but not its basic   
   > existence. Preverbal infants have been shown to know that they are not   
   > other, which then becomes the sense of self.   
   >   
   > The ego may be reactively conditioned but it cannot be of a completely   
   > different substance to the "something which cannot be desribed".   
   > Either making ego into some aberrant growth, or placing ultimate   
   > nature at some inaccessible distance, plays into division and duality.   
   >   
   > [snip]   
   >   
   > I'd say being knows itself to be by nature, and the ego's reflexive   
   > self-consciousness is a lower harmonic of that.   
      
   Jen can say what she wants to say in reply to what you   
   say above, but I'll jump in and say this: you are judging   
   a priori, from what is known to you (and this is   
   resistance), but that state (or whatever) precisely   
   ecapes any a priori and is to be experienced in itself,   
   purely a posteriori, in total surrender, without resistance.   
   In Krishnamurti's lingo, you are reducing the unknown to   
   the known. More specifically, "division and duality" are   
   your boogeymen, not part of such an experience. You   
   are trying to make such an experience intelligible to you,   
   which is self-defeating, as Jen notes.   
      
   I admit that I say so from my intellectual understanding,   
   not from actual experience. Even if I were to speak from   
   experience (which is untrue), it would just be a mere   
   opinion, not the experience.   
      
   Tang Huyen   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)