Theos-Talk Archives (October 1996 Message tl00543)

Dr. A.M.Bain writes:
>In message <199610170251.WAA15173@envirolink.org>, John Straughn
><JTarn@envirolink.org> writes
>>You (and not you specifically, "you" meaning those
>>who have stated that they wish to change the words on the following
>>grounds) wish to change the words because you, among  and /or in sympathy
>>with others, feel offended in a sexually discriminative manner.  This is
>>undeniably an offence to the ego and the ego only.  Therefore, by changing
>>the words because of the latter reason, you are giving in to and giving
>>strength to your ego, thereby weakening your attraction to the atman.
>
>It is undeniably what it says it is.  *People* (not just "egos" -  a
>term undefined by you) offended, not just parts of them.  You seem to be
>following a doctrinal position in your posts on this, but without
>stating what that position is, or defining your terms.  The very word
>"Ego" is used in several ways by different schools of thought.  Some
>might even be equated (by the users) with what you might call "atman."
>
>This is yet another language problem!

Ok, a language problem it is.  And I agree that many things need to be changed
for humanity to better understand less modern writings.  But, as I have
insinuated before, the reasoning behind an action is just as powerful as the
action itself.

As far as the word "ego" is concerned, in my understanding of the terminology,
it is the "personal" self.  I.E. the self which serves only the person in whom
it dwells.  Whereas the atman is the universal self, that which serves
humanity and nature as a whole.

---
The Triaist