Theos-Talk Archives (April 1997 Message tl00165)

In message <335975EF.3411@sprynet.com>, Bart Lidofsky
<bartl@sprynet.com> writes
>theosophists would
>> >consider any theory of reality that considers the ego precedent to be
>> >inherently untheosophical.
>> 
>> Interesting, but perhaps a little incomplete?  I would be interested in
>> your view (or definition) of "ego" before trying to follow this.  I use
>> the Jungian approach which sees "ego" as a psychological complex within
>> the personal unconscious.  And again, to suggest that something may be
>> "un-theosophical" begs the question as to what is "theosophical".
>
>       Ego as in lower self, kama manas and below.

In other words, your view of theosophy is one that places another aspect
of the human state as preceding (vide anthropogenesis) ego
consciousness?

I enquire about this, as some psycho/philosophical models use "ego" in
the sense of ultimate human essence, and some readers might not be clear
about different usages of the term.

Alan