Guest guest Posted March 7, 1999 Report Share Posted March 7, 1999 jb wrote: > > "jb" <kvy9 > > > Judy Walden <judyw > > > > Hi Jan, > > > > This probably shows my ignorance but I sort of thought nondual > > and enlightenment > > were synonymous. I also thought that the degree of diminishment > > of the ego was > > dependent upon how far along one was on the path toward enlightenment. > [...] > > It isn't ignorance Judy, it is that literature is rather vague about these > matters. For instance, one can be "lifted" into nirvikalpa samadhi where are > no thoughts and perceptions, just one's true nature. This is nonduality and > how or even if this is reflected in one's daily life depends on the > impressions left in the mind. > > If the ego is defined as: > 1. The self, especially as distinct from the world and other selves. > 2. In psychoanalysis, the division of the psyche that is conscious, most > immediately controls thought and behavior, and is most in touch with > external reality. > > It is clear that nirvikalpa samadhi will blow 1. to smithereens but not 2.. > In the course of sadhana the "inner" reality (there is only One) will > gradually start matching "outer" reality. This means the transparency (that > was subject in a previous thread) will eventually develop into its extreme > where literally there is no more awareness or feeling of "inner" or "outer" > and 2. no longer applies. > > > Jan Gloria: Entering into the conversation about fear and the state of being which Jan is talking about here, it is a process where by the world, thought, emotion, mind are let go of and in its place the soul/spirit/ & memory, I add memory because the soul/spirit has entered deeply into self remembering, not of the I but of the I Am. This knowing... is thus transformation of all that is of the human self/personality/ego. What one was afraid of is released and transformed into direct knowing and fearlessness. So that in the flow of consciousness the soul directly meets up with aspects of world, thought, emotion and sees through the illusion in total. This break away from ego/self is the absorbtion into union. One does not do this, it happens because of grace yet relates to the one thing that comes from free will...letting go, which releases oneself into truth bringing about direct experience. The state of Sahaja samadhi means one always remains in tune with what is and lives in the place of interior silence. A level of free flow has manifest and one remains in perfect meditation/union or what the Christian would say..."it is not I but Christ within who does the work." Earlier the list was talking about a person who wrote a book in which a women describes fear and being afraid as specking from the non-daul state. The discussion went on that this person must be crazy. I am not familiar with the writing however, the fear aspects are related to work from the three lower chakra's yet moving through transformation. Obviously personality is still at work at this stage, all is about balance, if the individual was in spiritual training and wrote the book while confronting her issues then it could appear this way perhaps in something she wrote. It is not something to be judged unless one sees the whole picture. Am I making the point here? > ------ > Did you know that we have over 85,000 e-mail communities at Onelist? > > Come visit our new web site and explore a new interest -- Enter The Silence to Know God ... and... accept life as the teacher. Gloria Joy Greco e-mail me at : lodpress and visit our homepages at: http://users.intercomm.com/larryn/ & http://www.freeyellow.com/members/zg888/ Hope you enjoy them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 1999 Report Share Posted March 7, 1999 > Gloria Greco <lodpress [...] > Earlier the list was talking about a person who wrote a > book in which a > women describes fear and being afraid as specking from the non-daul > state. The discussion went on that this person must be crazy. I am not > familiar with the writing however, the fear aspects are related to work > from the three lower chakra's yet moving through transformation. > Obviously personality is still at work at this stage, all is about > balance, if the individual was in spiritual training and wrote the book > while confronting her issues then it could appear this way perhaps in > something she wrote. It is not something to be judged unless one sees > the whole picture. Am I making the point here? Jan: From the frame of reference Kundalini rising offers, definitely - fear is limited to the three lower chakras. As long as the personality is present, samadhi is limited (doesn't reveal one's true nature). If a person is familiar with nirvikalpa samadhi, it is impossible to write a book like Suzanne did because the impressions of feelings left by experience(s) of loss of self become insignificant and fear ends, because going into nirvikalpa samadhi for the first time (especially in the presence of others) is like having to leave your house with all doors and windows wide open. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 1999 Report Share Posted March 7, 1999 At 12:01 AM 3/8/99 -0000, you wrote: >Jan: From the frame of reference Kundalini rising offers, definitely - fear >is limited to the three lower chakras. As long as the personality is >present, samadhi is limited (doesn't reveal one's true nature). If a person >is familiar with nirvikalpa samadhi, it is impossible to write a book like >Suzanne did because the impressions of feelings left by experience(s) of >loss of self become insignificant and fear ends, because going into >nirvikalpa samadhi for the first time (especially in the presence of others) >is like having to leave your house with all doors and windows wide open. It may also be impossible (or at least utterly unnecessary and distracting) to post to a mailing list if one has realized nirvikalpa samadhi, as such posting necessarily involves thought (in the formulation of words), which is essenced away and gone upon realizing nirvikalpa samadhi. Thus, it seems to me that posting to a mailing list would involve a leaving of the state of samadhi at the time of such posting, which suggests instability of Realization. Tim ----- The CORE of Reality awaits you at: http://www.serv.net/~fewtch/ND/index.html - Poetry, Writings, even Live Chat on spiritual topics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 1999 Report Share Posted March 8, 1999 >Gloria Greco <lodpress > Earlier the list was talking about a person who wrote a book in which a >women describes fear and being afraid as specking from the non-daul >state. The discussion went on that this person must be crazy. I am not >familiar with the writing however, the fear aspects are related to work >from the three lower chakra's yet moving through transformation. >Obviously personality is still at work at this stage, all is about >balance, if the individual was in spiritual training and wrote the book >while confronting her issues then it could appear this way perhaps in >something she wrote. It is not something to be judged unless one sees >the whole picture. Am I making the point here? > >> ------ >> Did you know that we have over 85,000 e-mail communities at Onelist? >> >> Come visit our new web site and explore a new interest > >-- > >Enter The Silence to Know God ... and... accept life as the teacher. >Gloria Joy Greco > e-mail me at : lodpress and visit our homepages at: >http://users.intercomm.com/larryn/ >& >http://www.freeyellow.com/members/zg888/ >Hope you enjoy them! > >------ >Come check out our brand new web site! > >Onelist: Making the Internet intimate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 1999 Report Share Posted March 8, 1999 >>Jan: From the frame of reference Kundalini rising offers, definitely - fear >>is limited to the three lower chakras. As long as the personality is >>present, samadhi is limited (doesn't reveal one's true nature). If a person >>is familiar with nirvikalpa samadhi, it is impossible to write a book like >>Suzanne did because the impressions of feelings left by experience(s) of >>loss of self become insignificant and fear ends, because going into >>nirvikalpa samadhi for the first time (especially in the presence of others) >>is like having to leave your house with all doors and windows wide open. >Tim: >It may also be impossible (or at least utterly unnecessary and distracting) >to post to a mailing list if one has realized nirvikalpa samadhi, as such >posting necessarily involves thought (in the formulation of words), which >is essenced away and gone upon realizing nirvikalpa samadhi. Thus, it >seems to me that posting to a mailing list would involve a leaving of the >state of samadhi at the time of such posting, which suggests instability of >Realization. Nope. If you go into the All _and come back_ into this life, you still have to have some way to express on personality levels - body, emotions, and intellect - in order to communicate with other people. I think there are people on this list who can tell you that after nirvikalpa samadhi, they can still experience emotions and they can still write email. Love, Dharma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 1999 Report Share Posted March 8, 1999 At 12:25 AM 3/8/99 -0600, you wrote: >I think there are people on this list who can tell you that after >nirvikalpa samadhi, they can still experience emotions and they can still >write email. And why should I believe they've experienced nirvikalpa samadhi just because they say they have? :-) Honestly, can you give me an answer? With Love, Tim ----- The CORE of Reality awaits you at: http://www.serv.net/~fewtch/ND/index.html - Poetry, Writings, even Live Chat on spiritual topics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 1999 Report Share Posted March 8, 1999 Message: 6 Sun, 07 Mar 1999 17:48:56 -0800 Tim Gerchmez <fewtch Re: fear and uhion << Jan: From the frame of reference Kundalini rising offers, definitely - fear is limited to the three lower chakras. As long as the personality is present, samadhi is limited (doesn't reveal one's true nature). If a person is familiar with nirvikalpa samadhi, it is impossible to write a book like Suzanne did because the impressions of feelings left by experience(s) of loss of self become insignificant and fear ends, because going into nirvikalpa samadhi for the first time (especially in the presence of others) is like having to leave your house with all doors and windows wide open. >> < Tim: It may also be impossible (or at least utterly unnecessary and distracting) to post to a mailing list if one has realized nirvikalpa samadhi, as such posting necessarily involves thought (in the formulation of words), which is essenced away and gone upon realizing nirvikalpa samadhi. Thus, it seems to me that posting to a mailing list would involve a leaving of the state of samadhi at the time of such posting, which suggests instability of Realization. > Tim, Is it not possible for a text to be typed from nirvikalpa samadhi without thoughts or personality being implied? It would mean that no ``I`` is actually typing. Maybe it's already happening all the "time" in all forms of what we call "manifestions" (pain included) and it's only our left personality that still limits the realization of nirvikalpa samadhi in certain types of actions. Why does such limits still exist? I wonder... Enjoy, Antoine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 1999 Report Share Posted March 8, 1999 >Message: 22 > Sun, 07 Mar 1999 22:45:56 -0800 > Tim Gerchmez <fewtch >Re: fear and uhion Dharma: << I think there are people on this list who can tell you that after nirvikalpa samadhi, they can still experience emotions and they can still write email. >> Tim: << And why should I believe they've experienced nirvikalpa samadhi just because they say they have? :-) Honestly, can you give me an answer? >> Tim, I ask the same question as you, from the other side of the coin. Why should I believe that there is something or anything that as not realised nirvikalpa samadhi? And if i beleive they are such things that have not realized nirvikalpa samadhi, from time to time, like pain, i ask the new self born from those beliefs, how can I realise nirvikalpa samadhi from this new illusion of perpective. Enjoy, Antoine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 1999 Report Share Posted March 8, 1999 At 11:05 AM 3/8/99 -0500, you wrote: >Tim, > >Is it not possible for a text to be typed from nirvikalpa samadhi without >thoughts or personality being implied? It would mean that no ``I`` is >actually typing. I can only help but wonder then, what is it that is typing... the fingers automatically moving and accidentally making sense? If there is mind there, there is still some kind of ego, or so it seems to me :-) But these are "individual" matters, and ultimately unimportant IMO. It's really only mySelf that interests me. "I" stand alone. Everyone Realizes samadhi in a different way, through a different path, as many paths as there are "individual" people. >Maybe it's already happening all the "time" in all forms of >what we call "manifestions" (pain included) and it's only our left >personality that still limits the realization of nirvikalpa samadhi in >certain types of actions. Why does such limits still exist? I wonder... Certainly, nirvikalpa samadhi is already "attained" in everyone, the whole thing is to simply realize this (which is probably why it's also known as "Realization" :-) With Love, Tim ----- The CORE of Reality awaits you at: http://www.serv.net/~fewtch/ND/index.html - Poetry, Writings, even Live Chat on spiritual topics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 1999 Report Share Posted March 8, 1999 Hi Vickie, At 02:40 PM 3/8/99 -0600, you wrote: >Vickie Novak <vnovak > >Hi all. I'm new to everthing you have been talking about. Sometimes to me it >looks like a bunch of words all strung together and there is nothing that >makes sense. : ) And for some reason I'm still here and I keep reading. Stick around, the more you read, the more it will gradually begin to make sense :-) >Ok here's a >question. What is ego? Ego is basically the sense of "me," of separate individuality, of separation from other people and from other things. >I have been going over and over what it is and I still >don't know. Is it healthy to have some ? It's healthy to have some, but most people let it run their lives. What a lot of us here are working on is to put it in its proper place, to look at ego as a tool rather than letting it run wild. With Love, Tim ----- The CORE of Reality awaits you at: http://www.serv.net/~fewtch/ND/index.html - Poetry, Writings, even Live Chat on spiritual topics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 1999 Report Share Posted March 8, 1999 Vickie Novak [vnovak] Monday, March 08, 1999 3:40 PM Re: fear and uhion Vickie Novak <vnovak Hi all. I'm new to everthing you have been talking about. Sometimes to me it looks like a bunch of words all strung together and there is nothing that makes sense. : ) Harsha: That is a good sign Vickie. Many know how you feel. Vickie: And for some reason I'm still here and I keep reading. Ok here's a question. What is ego? Harsha: Hard to say. Vickie: I have been going over and over what it is and I still don't know. Is it healthy to have some ? Harsha: It might be healthy to have some. But what do you mean by health? Is it better to not have any? Thanks Vickie Harsha: Better than what? Thanks Vickie. Welcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 1999 Report Share Posted March 8, 1999 Hi all. I'm new to everthing you have been talking about. Sometimes to me it looks like a bunch of words all strung together and there is nothing that makes sense. : ) And for some reason I'm still here and I keep reading. Ok here's a question. What is ego? I have been going over and over what it is and I still don't know. Is it healthy to have some ? Is it better to not have any? Thanks Vickie Tim Gerchmez wrote: > Tim Gerchmez <fewtch > > At 11:05 AM 3/8/99 -0500, you wrote: > > >Tim, > > > >Is it not possible for a text to be typed from nirvikalpa samadhi without > >thoughts or personality being implied? It would mean that no ``I`` is > >actually typing. > > I can only help but wonder then, what is it that is typing... the fingers > automatically moving and accidentally making sense? If there is mind > there, there is still some kind of ego, or so it seems to me :-) But these > are "individual" matters, and ultimately unimportant IMO. It's really only > mySelf that interests me. "I" stand alone. Everyone Realizes samadhi in a > different way, through a different path, as many paths as there are > "individual" people. > > >Maybe it's already happening all the "time" in all forms of > >what we call "manifestions" (pain included) and it's only our left > >personality that still limits the realization of nirvikalpa samadhi in > >certain types of actions. Why does such limits still exist? I wonder... > > Certainly, nirvikalpa samadhi is already "attained" in everyone, the whole > thing is to simply realize this (which is probably why it's also known as > "Realization" :-) > > With Love, > > Tim > > ----- > The CORE of Reality awaits you at: > http://www.serv.net/~fewtch/ND/index.html - > Poetry, Writings, even Live Chat on spiritual topics. > > ------ > We are proud as punch of our new web site! > > Onelist: The leading provider of free email community services Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 1999 Report Share Posted March 8, 1999 "Harsha (Dr. Harsh K. Luthar)" wrote: > "Harsha (Dr. Harsh K. Luthar)" <hluthar > > > Vickie Novak [vnovak] > Monday, March 08, 1999 3:40 PM > > Re: fear and uhion > > Vickie Novak <vnovak > > Hi all. I'm new to everthing you have been talking about. Sometimes to me it > looks like a bunch of words all strung together and there is nothing that > makes > sense. : ) > > Harsha: That is a good sign Vickie. Many know how you feel. > Why is it a good sign? > > Vickie: And for some reason I'm still here and I keep reading. Ok here's a > question. What is ego? > > Harsha: Hard to say. > > Vickie: I have been going over and over what it is and I still > don't know. Is it healthy to have some ? > > Harsha: It might be healthy to have some. But what do you mean by health? > By healthy I mean that it works in a positive way for the person with out causing harm.-I had to think about this > > Is it better to not have any? Thanks > Vickie > > Harsha: Better than what? Thanks Vickie. Welcome. > I guess better than having too much. Thank you, Vickie > ------ > New hobbies? New curiosities? New enthusiasms? > > Sign up for a new email list today Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 1999 Report Share Posted March 8, 1999 Vickie Novak wrote: (referring to ego) > > Is it better to not have any? Thanks > > Vickie > > > > Harsha: Better than what? Thanks Vickie. Welcome. > Vickie: I guess better than having too much. Thank you, Vickie Harsha: As long as we cannot get a handle on what ego is,to speak of "some ego", or "too much ego" makes little sense. So the important question you raise is "What is ego"? Modern psychology has many answers for what the ego is. So do various branches of Yoga in Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, etc. Any answer to that question must be predicated on the assumption that there is such an entity called the ego. "Who" is making this assumption? Perhaps all questions related to ego, mind, spirituality, etc., require a focusing on "Who is asking these questions?". "Where do these questions arise from?." To presuppose the existence of the "ego" and then to go about defining it and understanding it is an exercise in eloquent futility. It might indeed be comforting as it is supportive of the status quo. Yet it is simply escapism and avoidance of the real issue. And the real issues might emerge from questions asked but cannot be framed as questions and cannot be described in answers. The Tao one can speak of, is not the Eternal Tao. Let awareness be your guide. Love to all Harsha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 1999 Report Share Posted March 9, 1999 Hi. I've just managed to get minute to read some mails during my lunch break. As a newbie to the list, may I say how glad I am to be on this list? I am learning so much, so enjoyably! May I also share some thoughts on this "ego" stuff? Looks like i'm writing a large mail here. I won't make a habit of it! In 1980 I had a had a fairly comprehensive "breakdown", and one of the major challenges I faced on coming out on the other side of the dark lens was: How do I rebuild my sense of self so that I can survive, while still being real to my essence? Basically, I had to discover workable opinions, beliefs (things taken as true without 100% knowledge), and groups of thoughts that somehow defined "who I am". I was definitely not willing to go through the hallucinatory death of another breakdown like the one I'd just had: a) I'd done that, been there, and b) it had been world-shatteringly uncomfortable to my view of myself and my life. So I had somehow to grapple with this ego business. I was in a place where everything had equal value: life, death, good, bad, all relative and dependant on where I stood. And I didn't have an opinion on where I stood either. It was very difficult to make conversation... It seemed to me that I needed a structure of thoughts in order to create values in order to make decisions and thereby be able to act in the world. This would enable me to eat and look after myself, and relate to others. I had discovered during the breakdown that my essence would remain whether or not I died (and I was wondering if I could simply drop this existence with its pain and heartache), and the vision I saw seemed to clearly state that I would reincarnate should I give up living. Therefore there was no way of avoiding my life, whether this one or another. That left me with the task of building something that reflected reality as far as possible. And reality ultimately was beyond all belief. I knew that I could not explain the essence I experienced in a conceptual way, but I had to somehow reflect its implication by the way I created a sense of human "being". I used the I Ching several times a day for six months as a means of developing a structure based on fundamental and (hopefully) natural principles of balance and duality. I think without it it would have been a lot harder to develop a personal structure that worked on many levels. I still use it sometimes. Beautiful system it is. And as for Lao Tse... Right. So building a personality to me involved a fundamental concept of self (as opposed to "other"): there's me, and there's all that other stuff. How I feel/think about it is a reflection of my sense of self. And this illusion that I create is done in order to maintain some semblance of boundary between "me" and "not me". This in turn enables me to decide things in contrast to the surrounding field of manifestation. For example, I can decide to run for the bus because I believe that it is important to catch it in order to be carried to a place where I can carry out an action that accords with a belief or value that I deem important to me at present. I can of course change my mind and my values to accommodate missing the bus... or I can choose to be upset that the bus left without me, according to my sense of what is important to me. Either way, my beliefs, illusions that they are, are part of what I call my ego, my illusion that "I" exist (and that, by extension, anything else does). I can see what Harsha wrote about "who is it who is asking?" in terms of one of my beliefs checking another of my beliefs (the belief that I am, asking another belief that one can define essence to define itself). I have great compassion for people who struggle to navigate through the everchanging lightshow of existence, while they perceive an essence beyond it. And that to me is where all this ego stuff becomes an art, one which we can just lightly drop when we no longer need it. It seems to me the issue is: how subtle but practical can you make your ego, such that it needn't become your whole existence, and points like a compass towards the thing that shows it as the illusion it is? In contrast, psychology to me mostly attempts to deal with our tendencies as humans to think and behave in particular ways. Projection, extroversion, neurosis, depression, conditioning, all are tendencies, and all can be understood as a manifestation of thought meeting physical engineering. I think we can transcend such tendencies, but perhaps we need to understand them first. I have difficulty with Freud's concept of Ego because from my own perspective, even the Id is a tendency that we can transcend (but it contains some natural truths that our conditioning may have estranged us to, so it has the ability to teach naturalness). Well, I feel that's enough of my opinions for now. I would be very interested in other's views on this, and grateful to hear from you. I know very very little about Indian concepts, for instance. Robert At 23:47 08/03/99 -0500, Harsha (Dr. Harsh K. Luthar) wrote: >"Harsha (Dr. Harsh K. Luthar)" <hluthar > >Vickie Novak wrote: (referring to ego) > >> > Is it better to not have any? Thanks >> > Vickie >> > >> > Harsha: Better than what? Thanks Vickie. Welcome. > >> Vickie: I guess better than having too much. Thank you, Vickie > >Harsha: As long as we cannot get a handle on what ego is,to speak of "some ego", >or "too much ego" >makes little sense. So the important question you raise is "What is ego"? >Modern psychology has many answers for what the ego is. >So do various branches of Yoga in Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, etc. >Any answer to that question must be predicated on the assumption >that there is such an entity called the ego. "Who" is making this assumption? >Perhaps all questions related to ego, mind, spirituality, etc., >require a focusing on "Who is asking these questions?". >"Where do these questions arise from?." >To presuppose the existence of the "ego" and then to go >about defining it and understanding it is an exercise in eloquent futility. >It might indeed be comforting as it is supportive of the status quo. >Yet it is simply escapism and avoidance of the real issue. And the real issues >might emerge from questions asked but cannot be framed as questions >and cannot be described in answers. >The Tao one can speak of, is not the Eternal Tao. Let awareness be your guide. > >Love to all >Harsha > > > > > >------ >Did you know that we have over 85,000 e-mail communities at Onelist? > >Come visit our new web site and explore a new interest > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 1999 Report Share Posted March 9, 1999 Hi Robert! >I've just managed to get minute to read some mails during my lunch break. >As a newbie to the list, may I say how glad I am to be on this list? I am >learning so much, so enjoyably! Welcome from another newbie to the list. >In 1980 I had a had a fairly comprehensive "breakdown", and one of the >major challenges I faced on coming out on the other side of the dark lens >was: How do I rebuild my sense of self so that I can survive, while still >being real to my essence? Basically, I had to discover workable opinions, >beliefs (things taken as true without 100% knowledge), and groups of >thoughts that somehow defined "who I am". Thank you for sharing your experience. > >It seemed to me that I needed a structure of thoughts in order to create >values in order to make decisions and thereby be able to act in the world. It seems that that basic structure is necessary to function in this world... whether or not we call it ego. Someone spoke of cleaning all the dirt and mud from a glass pane so we could see through the glass and see what we really are. Some people use the word "ego" to refer to the dirt and mud, and some people use it to refer to the glass itself. I tend to think that talking about "killing the ego" is rather dangerous for some people. It's fine if it leads them to get rid of all the dirt and crap hiding the glass... but if the glass itself is broken, that's another story. Then one has to put something in its place... build a new glass through which to focus into the world again. >.... I used the I >Ching several times a day for six months as a means of developing a >structure based on fundamental and (hopefully) natural principles of >balance and duality. I think without it it would have been a lot harder to >develop a personal structure that worked on many levels. I still use it >sometimes. Beautiful system it is. And as for Lao Tse... Do you think your personality has a Chinese/Taoist flavor? If you had used another means, would the result have been very different, or not? >.... It seems to me the issue >is: how subtle but practical can you make your ego, I like very much the way you put this... that's very useful... "subtle but practical"... >such that it needn't >become your whole existence, and points like a compass towards the thing >that shows it as the illusion it is? > >In contrast, psychology to me mostly attempts to deal with our tendencies >as humans to think and behave in particular ways. Projection, extroversion, >neurosis, depression, conditioning, all are tendencies, and all can be >understood as a manifestation of thought meeting physical engineering. I >think we can transcend such tendencies, but perhaps we need to understand >them first. I have difficulty with Freud's concept of Ego because from my >own perspective, even the Id is a tendency that we can transcend (but it >contains some natural truths that our conditioning may have estranged us >to, so it has the ability to teach naturalness). I like Jung's view of the personality as a persona or mask... We need a face to present to the world, but we know it's just a mask... He talks about a new center that is established on the boundary between conscious and unconscious... that's where we work from, when no longer identified with the personality... and from there we can see both ways... Love, Dharma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 1999 Report Share Posted March 9, 1999 Welcome, Robert, At 02:59 PM 3/9/99 +0000, you wrote: >Robert Weil <Robert_Weil <snip> >In 1980 I had a had a fairly comprehensive "breakdown", Mine was in 1988 :-) >That left me with the task of building something that reflected reality as far >as possible. I don't know if you've realized yet that the Reality you speak of was there with You all along, and that there was nothing really to be built, but something to be realized. >Right. So building a personality to me involved a fundamental concept of >self (as opposed to "other"): there's me, and there's all that other stuff. One reason I had my "breakdown" was because of a weak ego structure. I've found paradoxically that the ego must be strong first, before it can be weakened and finally given up entirely. Otherwise, the ego-fear and terror of "losing oneself" can be overwhelming, and easily result in mental breakdown of one sort or another (as it did in my case when I began investigations into nonduality in the late 1980's). >And that to me is where all this ego stuff becomes an art, one which we >can just lightly drop when we no longer need it. Let's put it this way... there's all eternity to resolve the ego-issues, if you don't mind reincarnating again, it's likely you'll again be drawn toward nonduality in another lifetime, if you are in this one (that is, given the human race survives its current crises). >In contrast, psychology to me mostly attempts to deal with our tendencies >as humans to think and behave in particular ways. The purpose of psychology is to strengthen weak ego structures. To me, there is no other purpose. With Love, Tim P.S... visit my website (listed in my .sig below) if you like, for more information and nondual pointings. ----- The CORE of Reality awaits you at: http://www.serv.net/~fewtch/ND/index.html - Poetry, Writings, even Live Chat on spiritual topics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 1999 Report Share Posted March 10, 1999 Hi. Thank you everybody for all your replies. Wonderful stuff! Great to share this. Please excuse my slowness in reply sometimes: I need to slot this in with other commitments. (These part-timers...!) At 12:25 09/03/99 -0600, you wrote: >Dharma <fisher1 > >Hi Robert! > >>I've just managed to get minute to read some mails during my lunch break. >>As a newbie to the list, may I say how glad I am to be on this list? I am >>learning so much, so enjoyably! > >Welcome from another newbie to the list. > >>In 1980 I had a had a fairly comprehensive "breakdown", and one of the >>major challenges I faced on coming out on the other side of the dark lens >>was: How do I rebuild my sense of self so that I can survive, while still >>being real to my essence? Basically, I had to discover workable opinions, >>beliefs (things taken as true without 100% knowledge), and groups of >>thoughts that somehow defined "who I am". > >Thank you for sharing your experience. Robert: Well, thank you for welcoming it. It's not as easy as I thought to write to switched-on invisible people! :-) >> >>It seemed to me that I needed a structure of thoughts in order to create >>values in order to make decisions and thereby be able to act in the world. > >It seems that that basic structure is necessary to function in this >world... whether or not we call it ego. Someone spoke of cleaning all the >dirt and mud from a glass pane so we could see through the glass and see >what we really are. Some people use the word "ego" to refer to the dirt >and mud, and some people use it to refer to the glass itself. I tend to >think that talking about "killing the ego" is rather dangerous for some >people. It's fine if it leads them to get rid of all the dirt and crap >hiding the glass... but if the glass itself is broken, that's another >story. Then one has to put something in its place... build a new glass >through which to focus into the world again. Robert: Might it not be a reflection of some rigid ego concept that "killing the ego" or smashing the glass is desirable or inadvisable? I ask because the glass damn near smithereened, and yet for all the shock it enabled me to go to fundamentals, not start half-way up with half-baked ideas. Having said that, I don't recommend it, much preferring gentleness as a teacher. A case of horses for courses, needs must, etc?? > >>.... I used the I >>Ching several times a day for six months as a means of developing a >>structure based on fundamental and (hopefully) natural principles of >>balance and duality. I think without it it would have been a lot harder to >>develop a personal structure that worked on many levels. I still use it >>sometimes. Beautiful system it is. And as for Lao Tse... > >Do you think your personality has a Chinese/Taoist flavor? If you had used >another means, would the result have been very different, or not? Robert: Well, that's an interesting point. It did resonate on a deep level with me. I sometimes feel a Chinese pre-connection in my Self (I can't say that it's my personality, because so much of that is culturally influenced and tends to communicate as such), and I have met an oriental inner plane guide a few times (or an aspect of myself, or...). However, this system was not the only one i investigated. I looked into Quabbalah, Tarot, some Zen (very helpful...), and a few other things like Astrology. These other systems definitely emanate their own auras, so to speak, and have been useful and powerful in their own way. On reflection the dualistic simplicity of the Taoist approach was for me the most subtle and fundamental way to view the phenomenal world. It also seemed to be more able to flow through the changes of the cosmos, rather than state positions and principles somehow separated from the time dimension. I also believe that there has probably been less distortion through history in something so fundamentally simple (or it is easier to reduce it to first principles again), compared to the Tarot for instance (I expect there'll be some disagreement here, but I mean no disrespect to it). Ultimately I feel I could create my own cosmology from the building blocks of the Yin/Yang system, using cards or diagrams. It just seems to contain itself so neatly. All of this perhaps sounds academic. It isn't to me, it affects me sometimes very strongly. But I do have an ability towards intellectual thinking. > >>.... It seems to me the issue >>is: how subtle but practical can you make your ego, > >I like very much the way you put this... that's very useful... "subtle >but practical"... Robert: Perhaps that was my Chinese link. Whatever, thank you. > <Snip> >>to, so it has the ability to teach naturalness). > >I like Jung's view of the personality as a persona or mask... We need a >face to present to the world, but we know it's just a mask... He talks >about a new center that is established on the boundary between conscious >and unconscious... that's where we work from, when no longer identified >with the personality... and from there we can see both ways... Robert: I need to read more on Jung. From what you say above, the ego is a "false" self, is that an implication of this view? I don't seek that for myself. Oh, hang on, "we know it's just a mask"... I see what you mean, like it. I think what I'm after is the means of Being such that the icons and symbols of mutual patterning between me and others is used in an aware way. I don't mean this to sound premeditated. It's an intuitive thing. I know someone who serves tea at parties. He is a consummate tea-maker: he creates a place where people make friends and if necessary let go of their shyness, and he provides a non-stop low-key cabaret. But he doesn't present a false self, just a medium of expression. Thank you. >Love, >Dharma @@@@@@@@ Tim: I don't know if you've realized yet that the Reality you speak of was there with You all along, and that there was nothing really to be built, but something to be realized. Robert: Yup yup. RD Laing wrote something really on the button about this, about going through the gate, but I haven't got it to hand. Even my decision to "do the work" was me believing there was work to do. When that breakdown came, I was the last to know :-) >Right. So building a personality to me involved a fundamental concept of >self (as opposed to "other"): there's me, and there's all that other stuff. Tim: One reason I had my "breakdown" was because of a weak ego structure. I've found paradoxically that the ego must be strong first, before it can be weakened and finally given up entirely. Otherwise, the ego-fear and terror of "losing oneself" can be overwhelming, and easily result in mental breakdown of one sort or another (as it did in my case when I began investigations into nonduality in the late 1980's). Robert: That's very interesting. I'd agree with that. I'd say I was setting up a false self, a dream-personality, hoping that I could pretend things were other than they were. Then after about four years the lightning struck. Post-strike, however, I didn't want to overcompensate and become strident (another control technique). I felt the middle way would enable clarity and gentleness as well as detachment. >And that to me is where all this ego stuff becomes an art, one which we >can just lightly drop when we no longer need it. Tim: Let's put it this way... there's all eternity to resolve the ego-issues, if you don't mind reincarnating again, it's likely you'll again be drawn toward nonduality in another lifetime, if you are in this one (that is, given the human race survives its current crises). Robert: Ok, and if i reincarnate it's because I do. Nice to know there's all the time in the world ;-) Tim: >In contrast, psychology to me mostly attempts to deal with our tendencies >as humans to think and behave in particular ways. The purpose of psychology is to strengthen weak ego structures. To me, there is no other purpose. Robert: I like that, though I've seen all kinds of uses to which it's been put... I think for me the best ego structure can bend like a reed, but remain true to its essence, and any psychological constructs that enable that are fine by me. I guess that's my eastern bias :-) Thank you, Rob With Love, Tim @@@@@@@ > Hi Gloria. BTW, I've enjoyed reading every mail I've read of yours to date. Thank you for your caring and compassionate way of being. Gloria: Everything in awakening is about balance. Because life is full of paradox's, this can be difficult to find that magic center point which is when clarity and understanding of the process comes together. Remember this isn't about mind, it is about surrender and understanding those things that only spirit can identify so that one moves from the state of thinking, trying, wanting, into that total state of letting go which brings about union with what is. Yes, I agree with that. I find I can sometimes merge readily with everything around me: there's no duality, just a presence that experiences the experience. Perhaps that's from very early childhood. Is this what you coulddecribe as a weak ego? Might it be seen as a natural connection with one's essence? Seems to me, at some level, ego is the separation from essence, and in that sense it involves striving ("I" am like this...). Gloria: The term ego can be very misleading because everything is not only about balance, it is about process, and transformation and it is about preparation and timing. Everybody starts from where they are. I have worked with people who have a very strong ego and identity of who they were as a person, and some with almost none. Robert: I really like what you say. Strength of ego to me needs to be carefully considered tho'. A conviction of "who one is" does not necessarily comprehend the oneness of everything. An awareness of what one IS might entail the understanding of the temporary nature of this "who-one-is". Does that mean that that person would have a "weak" ego? I'm asking because I sometimes wonder about this. I have known "strong" ego types who have created a "reality field" around them that poured everything through a narrow world-view and imposed that view on the surroundings. Gloria: In her case everything starts from building up the ego, the identity, the self. I am not talking about the True Self, but the personality, the vehicle in which to work through. Before she can even move into realizations of letting go and detachment she has to acquire a self to create through. This is clearly half of the process. First you master some aspects of self creation. How do you let go of something that you don't have? Robert: Right, I see what you mean. But this is as you say the early stage of growing awareness in being here. I'm only saying that weak or strong, the ego is still (apparently) a carapace. Gloria: First it has to have developed to a point of direct awareness. Robert: ...."Direct awareness" is difficult for me to use as language, because it means what it means to those who experience it, but not much to those who don't. Do you mean by this that one sees what is there without any intervening concepts, predjudices, and emotions? Does it involve allowing oneself to be as open as possible to the experience? Is this the surrender which you speak of? If that's the case, I know what you mean... Gloria: At the point it is developed it has to be used enough to understand that it is a false creator and therefore an imitation of the True self. One has to experience this enough so that the surrender begins naturally and automatically because the soul/spirit understands something is missing. Robert: Yes, that is my experience too. Gloria: This state is not brought about through intellect but through direct experience, which involves success, failure, growth. All of the things that appear to be good, bad, ups, downs, these are all part of the preparation process. Nothing is by chance, everything has purpose. When the time is right, the soul is ripe and then all of the pieces are in place for the transformation process to begin. Robert: I agree. This is my experience, as well as others' I know. So much has happened to me in this life that has shown me my Self. Direct experience is true. I was interested in how a person can relate to the ego concept (because it is a concept, ultimately) so that they can Be and live in the world of artificial structures and rituals without identifying with them. Gloria: Ego is not about right and wrong, it is a state of mind which creates blocks and barriers to the process, and then it involves the perfect set of circumstances which soul/spirit sets up to teach specifically what is ego. What comes from the lower state of human desire, thought, and illusion and that which is of God. Robert: This may be so. I wonder whether it is possible to refine one's ego such that it becomes more and more transparent to one's souls/spirit? This is what I'm tracking. I feel that ego can be a separation from the moment, from one's essence, from direct experience. But it seems necessary in order to maintain some form at this level. I guess this brings in why one would be "here" anyway, and whether one needs to renounce all that is not "pure". In a zen perspective, the negation of things because they aren't "of spirit" also creates separation, and creates the illusion of good versus evil. I'm not being intellectual here, honest, I had wonderful quandries watching TV films, trying to work who the goodies and baddies were, when they were both killing each other... How does one refine one's awareness to simultaneously become a "more spiritual" person and still transcend dualities? Surrender and creation seem at odds here, unless we can allow creation from a place beyond ego... Gloria: There is a perfect time when one is ready to confront those qualities that block and create barriers. One can not assume that each individual is at that point in the process where this is appropriate, the only way of knowing this, is to be in flow and have spirit manifest it. Robert: I know what you mean. i have had times like those. I have also felt these times change into new times where my experience felt less than perfect. I fretted and fidgetted the first few times it happened, and still catch my self worrying now and then. Great. Work to do (or is that Not to do?). And eventually I'll just Be without getting hung up about whether it's good. Incidentally, these barriers: do they include one's aversion to taking life or being violent toward another? Experiencing the oneness of all, I could say that I could not kill another -- I am them and they me -- but again, as all is Unity, life and death is natural and part of the cycle of this planet. Should I eat meat? Is it OK if I kill it myself? Are plants alive? Is it my attitude to what I devour that makes the difference? I find there are times when I eat meat, and other times when I cannot. I don't know whether my ego is therefore weak, or whether I am flowing in tune with my inner knowing. (I like to think I am...) This is where I let go. Gloria: Many people have not acquired the character and strength needed to go through the transformation process. For many it is appropriate for them to continue in the self creation mode and actually be building a strong ego. Robert: I can see how that would be. To me it requires an honesty to oneself about what one feels, believes and does. I think that in so doing one develops a stronger ego, but based on a commitment to being true to yourself, and that is something that is uniquely yours, and no one can take that away from you, unless you somehow allow it. Ultimately, all this becomes nothing more than a focus upon the source of that truth. Gloria: Yes, this is another way of saying you accept where you are as perfect, and that all that you are and were brought you to this place of recognition of the process. So that this place of awareness can be the way station for realization. This then isn't about an intellectual recognition of what is happening but a detached observation of the whole picture. In this wholeness one witness's the process without thought or emotion and in this... the detachment creates the space of surrender. Does this speak to your process? Yes it most certainly does. All else is a passion play, and a means to understand. In this, ego is process, and perfect, just as we are. Thanks. That has connected something for me. I'm going to let it do its work. Thanks Gloria. @@@@@@@@ Ah well, back to work... Robert > > > >------ >To from this mailing list, or to change your subscription >to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at and >select the Member Center link from the menu bar on the left. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 11, 1999 Report Share Posted March 11, 1999 Hi Robert, >Might it not be a reflection of some rigid ego concept that "killing the >ego" or smashing the glass is desirable or inadvisable? I ask because the >glass damn near smithereened, and yet for all the shock it enabled me to go >to fundamentals, not start half-way up with half-baked ideas. Having said >that, I don't recommend it, much preferring gentleness as a teacher. A case >of horses for courses, needs must, etc?? You made the best of what happened... and maybe you intended it for this life... but it isn't something I'd steer someone into on purpose. Can't quite see myself saying, "When you get out of the hospital, you'll thank me for this.." )) >>>.... I used the I >>>Ching several times a day for six months as a means of developing a >>>structure based on fundamental and (hopefully) natural principles of >>>balance and duality. I think without it it would have been a lot harder to >>>develop a personal structure that worked on many levels. I still use it >>>sometimes. Beautiful system it is. And as for Lao Tse... >> >>Do you think your personality has a Chinese/Taoist flavor? If you had used >>another means, would the result have been very different, or not? > >Robert: >Well, that's an interesting point. It did resonate on a deep level with me. >I sometimes feel a Chinese pre-connection in my Self (I can't say that it's >my personality, because so much of that is culturally influenced and tends >to communicate as such), and I have met an oriental inner plane guide a few >times (or an aspect of myself, or...). Wonderful!! You can't have a better teacher than your internal guru. >I need to read more on Jung. From what you say above, the ego is a "false" >self, is that an implication of this view? I don't seek that for myself. >Oh, hang on, "we know it's just a mask"... I see what you mean, like it. I >think what I'm after is the means of Being such that the icons and symbols >of mutual patterning between me and others is used in an aware way. I don't >mean this to sound premeditated. It's an intuitive thing. I know someone >who serves tea at parties. He is a consummate tea-maker: he creates a place >where people make friends and if necessary let go of their shyness, and he >provides a non-stop low-key cabaret. But he doesn't present a false self, >just a medium of expression. No, not the ego... the personality. And I didn't say "false." Put it this way: you have to turn SOME face to the world... so what face will it be? Your tea-maker friend chooses what face he turns to the world. Some people might think we have no choice... having created or recreated your own personality, you know differently. The point is to know that you are NOT the same thing as your personality. Last spring I went through a difficult time, and I wrote to Sandeep. He had written a poem, and I began by quoting it... >D. Hello my friend: > >poem snipped< > >D. It is a difficult day for me, and your words seem to speak for my heart. > >Thank you. --------------- > >>S. Thank you for accepting my words. > >>Has the difficult day ended for you? > >D. It may not end for a while - the outcome seems uncertain. I'm trying >not to care, but that's like straining to relax! ) Think I'll go play >with horoscopes for a while! ----------- >>S. May I suggest that you be aware of the fact that you care and also be >>aware that you are hoping not to care about the outcome. > >>A witness around whom this drama of caring, not caring, hoping, fearing, >>expecting a particular "type" of outcome, all this drama is taking place >>around the witness which is really you. The drama is not you but the >>witness to the drama is you. > >D. I feel more like an actor on stage. Trouble is, I'm a "method" actor. >Hard to step out of it. ------------ >>S. Aren't we all? > >>The trick is to remember the "role" one has assumed on the stage of life. >>Nothing wrong with any "role" and I repeat any "role". Only remember it >>is a "role" not you. > >>Cheers > >>Sandeep> ------------- I've been looking for something from Jung to explain better, but so many of my books are in boxes... Erich Neumann, a Jungian, wrote a wonderful essay on "Creative Man and Transformation." Let me take a little from that. If anyone would like the whole thing, I'll scan it. He says first that every change, every illness and recovery, every development, every change of attitude, is transformation. And that each religious, psychological, and political viewpoint interprets transformation in a different way... and these are all limited and relative... "What we encounter most often are partial changes, partial transformations of the personality, and particularly of consciousness. Such partial transformations are by no means unimportant. The development of the ego and consciousness, the centroversion of consciousness in the middle of which the ego complex finds itself, the differentiation and specialization of consciousness, its orientation in the world and adaptation to it, its amplification by change of contents and assimilation of new contents - all these processes of normal development are highly significant processes of transformation.... > Let us not forget that it is less than a hundred years since modern man >ceased to regard the transformations of consciousness, i.e., of the >partial personality, as almost all that mattered.... Yet the experience of depth psychology has taught us that unless changes in consciousness go hand in hand with a change in the unconscious components of the personality, they do not amount to much. A purely intellectual orientation can, to be sure, bring about significant changes in consciousness, but for the most part such changes are restricted to the limited zone of consciousness. Whereas partial changes in the personal unconscious, in the "complexes," always influence consciousness at the same time, and changes effected through the archetypes of the collective unconscious almost always seize upon the whole personality. > Most striking are those transformations which violently assail an >ego-centered and seemingly airtight consciousness, i.e., transformations >characterized by more or less sudden "irruptions" of the unconscious into >consciousness.... These are much stronger for us, he says, than in a more primitive society where people are more open to the unconscious and have rituals to "provide a bond with the archetypal powers." > Related to these are the transformations known to us from the phenomenon >of sudden conversion or illumination. But here the suddenness and >strangeness of the irruption apply only to the affected ego and >consciousness, not to the personality. Usually the irruption into >consciousness is only the culmination of a development that had long been >maturing in the unconscious stratum of the personality; the irruption >represents only the "bursting point" of a transformative process that has >long been present but has previously not been perceptible to the ego. So he seems to see the ego, the "I," at the center of consciousness, but he does not equate the ego with the personality. And I find it interesting that he sees the personality as extending into the personal unconscious. Beyond that is the collective unconscious with the universal archetypes... Our problem is especially because of our modern culture, he says... >.... Domination by our one-sided culture of consciousness has led the >individual almost to a sclerosis of consciousness; he has become well-nigh >incapable of psychic transformation. In this situation the ego becomes an >exclusive ego, a development reflected in such terms as "egoistic" and >"egocentric." It becomes closed both to the _thou_ of the self, of the >individual's own wholeness, and to the _thou_ of the outside, of the world >and mankind. > This "egoization" of a closed-off and sclerotic consciousness is >completed by the formation of an ego ideal. In contradistinction to the >self, the center of the real and living totality (i.e., the totality that >is transformed and brings transformation), the ego ideal is a function and >an artificial product of reaction.... The ego ideal comprises the >culture-conditioned will to be different from what one really is, i.e., a >conscious and unconscious rejection and repression of the self... Jung used the word "self" to indicate the new center that is constellated in the process of individuation. Referring to St. Paul's words, "I live; yet not I, but Christ lives in me," he says that >...the center of the total personality no longer coincides with the ego, >but with a point midway between the conscious and unconscious. This would >be the point of a new equilibrium, a new centering of the total >personality, a virtual center which, on account of its focal position >between conscious and unconscious, ensures for the personality a new and >more solid foundation. More complex than I thought it was going to be! )) And he hasn't even gotten much into archetypes yet... Love, Dharma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.