Guest guest Posted August 13, 1999 Report Share Posted August 13, 1999 Ultimately under the unconscious is Atman self realisation is the ego remembering and surrendering to Atman The unconscious is the forgetting that separates us from Atman The unconscious is ego ... spirituality is ego/mind Spirituality is ego manipulation Soul is ego Reincarnation is the reincarnation of ego ... Atman always is childhood development/parenting/teaching is ego masturbation and manipulation because for most is does not allow, accept or recognise the presence of Atman in the child K is the emergence of Atman through the confines of Ego Top down chakra opening is ego manipulation of itself to accept the existance of Atman Fear is the remembering of previous ego self judgements and the consequences ... triggering the ego survival instinct Christopher Wynter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 1999 Report Share Posted August 13, 1999 Hi Chris, >Ultimately under the unconscious is Atman > >self realisation is the ego remembering and surrendering to Atman > >The unconscious is the forgetting that separates us from Atman > >The unconscious is ego ... This is a different use of the term than the way most people understand the word. Jungians speak of a personal unconscious that is nearer to us or more accessible than the collective unconscious... do you see the personal unconscious as the beginning of "I-making" and thus the ego? >spirituality is ego/mind > >Spirituality is ego manipulation > >Soul is ego The DK/Bailey books use the term Ego for the soul... and see it as midway between spirit and personality... something artificial, in a relative sense... that finally is given up so that one becomes just spirit manifesting in the bodies. Is this what you mean? Please understand that I have no wish to debate the meaning of words... I have no vested interest in any particular word. My field is communication, and I am always looking for a common code by which to communicate... for words which we can use together... either because we mean the same thing by them or because we understand each others' meanings. Love, Dharma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 14, 1999 Report Share Posted August 14, 1999 All man 'understands' is words ... understanding is ego driven need the only common word is the space between the words ... the eternal silence of the collective consciousness of which the word is the unconscious expression and the 'conscious' is the limited perception ... seen through the eyes of past conditioning ... Christopher - Dharma <fisher1 < > Saturday, 14 August 1999 12:55 Re: Unconscious is Ego ... Atman is > Dharma <fisher1 > > Hi Chris, > > >Ultimately under the unconscious is Atman > > > >self realisation is the ego remembering and surrendering to Atman > > > >The unconscious is the forgetting that separates us from Atman > > > >The unconscious is ego ... > > This is a different use of the term than the way most people understand the > word. Jungians speak of a personal unconscious that is nearer to us or > more accessible than the collective unconscious... do you see the personal > unconscious as the beginning of "I-making" and thus the ego? > > >spirituality is ego/mind > > > >Spirituality is ego manipulation > > > >Soul is ego > > The DK/Bailey books use the term Ego for the soul... and see it as midway > between spirit and personality... something artificial, in a relative > sense... that finally is given up so that one becomes just spirit > manifesting in the bodies. Is this what you mean? > > Please understand that I have no wish to debate the meaning of words... I > have no vested interest in any particular word. My field is communication, > and I am always looking for a common code by which to communicate... for > words which we can use together... either because we mean the same thing > by them or because we understand each others' meanings. > > Love, > Dharma > > > > --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- > > Start a new ONElist list & you can WIN great prizes! > For details on ONElist's NEW FRIENDS & FAMILY program, go to > /info/onereachsplash3.html > > ------ > Eat Raw Foods and You Will Never be Constipated! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 14, 1999 Report Share Posted August 14, 1999 Christopher Wynter wrote: > > Top down chakra opening is ego manipulation of itself to accept the existance of > Atman > This is the part I like Chris .. yes I agree the personality learns how to allow the descent of Grace from above .. care to say more? Col Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 14, 1999 Report Share Posted August 14, 1999 You speak of me and to me with fear in your heart. Why? I am merely an expression of you, untainted, unhindered by humanities' perceived burden. Fear of erasure. Fear that your life based on harsh wants and needs will be erased if you accept who I am and who you are. Yet, the egg and flour, butter and sugar give up their identity and by the purification of flame to create a cake. So too, all that has been you, when exposed to the energy of creation, has the opportunity to become something unique and new. All things change and transmute. Why must man see himself/herself as different? I am as you are. I will resonate with you and scales of falsehood will fall. You may grieve and cry. Cry and be healed, for as one, shall I dance with the world and the world shall dance with me. Each shall move to the steps of the soul and so shall the earth herself dance with the sky and clouds shall pass and rain shall fall and all will be born anew. om anunda I am the dance of consciousness With Respect Christopher Wynter Hobart, Tasmania wynter The Plain Man's Notebook is being compiled from this series of posts http://www.anunda.com/notebook/index.html my own discussion list can be found at //anunda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 14, 1999 Report Share Posted August 14, 1999 Hi Chris, >All man 'understands' is words ... > >understanding is ego driven need If "The unconscious is ego," how are we to understand the above line? Does it mean, "Understanding is need driven by the unconscious"? Love, Dharma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 14, 1999 Report Share Posted August 14, 1999 Very interesting propositions, but can we also say . . ? >Ultimately under the unconscious is Atman Can we also say the unconscious is 'within' Atman? or 'rooted in' Atman? >self realisation is the ego remembering and surrendering to Atman Can we also say it is the ego 'taken in' by Atman? or 'assimilated by' Atman? >The unconscious is the forgetting that separates us from Atman Can we also say it is a 'building up' which 'moves away' from Atman? or a build-up of mind-stuff which buffers us from Atman? >The unconscious is ego ... Not to Jungians, who see the unconscious as that which is outside the sphere of consciousness of the ego complex. Perhaps the unconscious is not-ego and not-Atman, although ego is rooted in the unconscious and both ego and the unconscious are rooted in Atman. >spirituality is ego/mind Perhaps mental spirituality does not exhaust spirituality. Maybe there are non-mental or 'supramental' forms of sprituality. >Spirituality is ego manipulation Maybe mental spirituality is, and maybe other forms of spirituality are not. >Soul is ego For many, Jungians and yoga sadhakas alike, soul is more than ego, and the ego occurs within soul. >Reincarnation is the reincarnation of ego ... Atman always is Yes, but doesn't Atman 'come with' the ego in the emdodiment of the individualized Jivatman? >K is the emergence of Atman through the confines of Ego Or the emergence of energies/emanations of Atman. -- Max --------------------------- FREE - yourname - Just visit http://www.philosophers.net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 14, 1999 Report Share Posted August 14, 1999 Hi Max, >>The unconscious is ego ... > >Not to Jungians, who see the unconscious as that which is outside >the sphere of consciousness of the ego complex. >Perhaps the unconscious is not-ego and not-Atman, >although ego is rooted in the unconscious >and both ego and the unconscious are rooted in Atman. Well said. >>spirituality is ego/mind > >Perhaps mental spirituality does not exhaust spirituality. >Maybe there are non-mental or 'supramental' forms of sprituality. A good distinction to make. >>Reincarnation is the reincarnation of ego ... Atman always is > >Yes, but doesn't Atman 'come with' the ego in the emdodiment >of the individualized Jivatman? > >>K is the emergence of Atman through the confines of Ego > >Or the emergence of energies/emanations of Atman. This raises a question(s) for me... I don't have an answer yet... so I'm just gonna ramble here... think out loud. In my experience Atman in me is a stream of energy emerging from the All... from Brahman. That is what I am... all the rest is the paraphernalia of manifestation. "Stream of energy" is my way of perceiving... someone else might say "ray of light." I have thought in terms of this metaphor: the All is a great many-faceted jewel... the light of the All shines out through every facet... as I (in manifestation) return to my root, I go back through one facet of the jewel. Kundalini Shakti has not seemed to me to be just "my Atman"... not just the light/energy coming from one facet of the jewel. I read (but have forgotten who said it) that Shakti is the first emanation from the All. That makes sense to me. In my experience Kundalini Shakti is an autonomous... what? energy complex? power? energy? Anyway, autonomous. When my K. went into high gear, Mother Shakti (or Lord Shakti, as I used to call her... she said it didn't matter) was my guide, my spiritual guru. I felt completely safe in her hands... I knew nothing could go wrong with Shakti in control. I think it may be that Shakti is the first emanation from the All... but then I must add that that first emanation is intelligent in some sense... autonomous. >>K is the emergence of Atman through the confines of Ego > >Or the emergence of energies/emanations of Atman. The questions going through my mind... is Shakti the same as Atman?... is Shakti something different for me than she is for others?... doesn't seem likely... etc., etc.... it all seems to come to one problem... maybe I can express it this way: Is the All a great many-faceted jewel? Or is there only one facet? It is metaphor, of course... but outside the All, everything is symbol and metaphor... if we speak of these things at all, we must use _some_ words, _some_ metaphors. Maybe I need another metaphor... I have the feeling that somewhere here I'm comparing apples and oranges... kings and sealing-wax... speaking/thinking in mutually incompatible terms... but I don't see how. This matter is not really important for my daily life, of course... it isn't necessary for me to understand this any better. But I would like to understand it... if it's possible. Maybe this is one of the things that I can't grasp fully while I'm in incarnation. I'll be grateful for any help with this... insights, experiences, quotes... thanks in advance. Love, Dharma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 1999 Report Share Posted August 15, 1999 Hi Dharma, I have given some reflection to what you have said, and offer some brief comments after prior postings. >>>K is the emergence of Atman through the confines of Ego >> >>Or the emergence of energies/emanations of Atman. > >This raises a question(s) for me... I don't have an answer yet... so I'm >just gonna ramble here... think out loud. > >In my experience Atman in me is a stream of energy emerging from the All... >from Brahman. That is what I am... all the rest is the paraphernalia of >manifestation. "Stream of energy" is my way of perceiving... someone else >might say "ray of light." >Kundalini Shakti has not seemed to me to be just "my Atman"... not just >the light/energy coming from one facet of the jewel. > >I read (but have forgotten who said it) that Shakti is the first emanation >from the All. That makes sense to me. >I think it may be that Shakti is the first emanation from the All... but >then I must add that that first emanation is intelligent in some sense... >autonomous. >The questions going through my mind... is Shakti the same as Atman?... is >Shakti something different for me than she is for others?... >It is metaphor, of course... but outside the All, everything is symbol and >metaphor... if we speak of these things at all, we must use _some_ words, >_some_ metaphors. Maybe I need another metaphor... > >I have the feeling that somewhere here I'm comparing apples and oranges... >kings and sealing-wax... speaking/thinking in mutually incompatible >terms... but I don't see how. > >This matter is not really important for my daily life, of course... it >isn't necessary for me to understand this any better. But I would like >to understand it... > >I'll be grateful for any help with this... insights, experiences, >quotes... thanks in advance. Speaking as just another yoga sadhaka, with no pretense of being a guru or master, I have this to say: There is a sense in which all forms of being are Brahman, and yet it also makes sense to acknowledge the identity of the forms while they are being in their formed state. But when we are speaking of forms of being like 'kundalini' or Shakti, purusha, prakriti, etc., we are speaking of forms of being which are transcendent to our normal apperception, and the conceptioning of such forms of being are going to be more metaphorical than the norm. And it will therefore be more difficult to agree on the boundaries between kundalini and Shakti, or kundalini and prakriti, or Shakti and prakriti, etc., etc. But yet it helps our dialogue and our shared pursuit of understanding to not give up on the communicative task. So communities of like-minded folk try to reach some agreement on the meaning of terms and the conceptioning of concepts. Aurobindo, for example, has systematized the meanings of some of these basic terms in his yoga philosophy, such that the purusha/prakriti pairing is like the Ishwara/Shakti pairing, but on a different level. I could go into this in more detail if you like. But with regards to relating the kundalini phenomenon to Atman or Shakti (or prakriti), I would feel comfortable with the conception of kundalini flowing from Shakti or Prakriti (or from Atman in a more mediated sense) into the ego, without overly identifying kundalini as its source (as Shakti or Prakriti or Atman). Even though all are forms of Brahman, there is also value in recognizing the various forms and their various roles and relations. Yet we all know that more important than the language and more important than the conceptionings, is the experiential reality which is the essence within the form. As the ego opens up to awareness of these things beyond it, and as these energies and emanations of divine forms break into the ego's life, the ego 'clothes' the inrushing essences with garments of shape and color in order to manage the experience and not be overwelmed by it. This 'clothing' has the value of allowing ego to grow broader and more capable of sustaining these influxes. The disrobing comes later. All religion and all mystical traditions are wardrobes. When you catch Brahman naked, see how long it takes for clothes to appear again. Namaste, -- Max --------------------------- FREE - yourname - Just visit http://www.philosophers.net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 16, 1999 Report Share Posted August 16, 1999 Hi Max, >There is a sense in which all forms of being are Brahman, >and yet it also makes sense to acknowledge the identity >of the forms while they are being in their formed state. > >But when we are speaking of forms of being like 'kundalini' >or Shakti, purusha, prakriti, etc., we are speaking of forms >of being which are transcendent to our normal apperception, >and the conceptioning of such forms of being are going to be >more metaphorical than the norm. > >And it will therefore be more difficult to agree on the >boundaries between kundalini and Shakti, or kundalini and >prakriti, or Shakti and prakriti, etc., etc. > >But yet it helps our dialogue and our shared pursuit of >understanding to not give up on the communicative task. >So communities of like-minded folk try to reach some agreement >on the meaning of terms and the conceptioning of concepts. > >Aurobindo, for example, has systematized the meanings of >some of these basic terms in his yoga philosophy, such that >the purusha/prakriti pairing is like the Ishwara/Shakti >pairing, but on a different level. I could go into this >in more detail if you like. Yes, please do!! >But with regards to relating the kundalini phenomenon to >Atman or Shakti (or prakriti), I would feel comfortable >with the conception of kundalini flowing from Shakti or >Prakriti (or from Atman in a more mediated sense) into the ego, >without overly identifying kundalini as its source (as Shakti >or Prakriti or Atman). Even though all are forms of Brahman, >there is also value in recognizing the various forms and their >various roles and relations. Hmm, do I hear you saying, "Don't worry too much about exactly how it comes"? >Yet we all know that more important than the language >and more important than the conceptionings, >is the experiential reality which is the essence within the form. >As the ego opens up to awareness of these things beyond it, >and as these energies and emanations of divine forms >break into the ego's life, >the ego 'clothes' the inrushing essences >with garments of shape and color >in order to manage the experience >and not be overwelmed by it. >This 'clothing' has the value of allowing ego to grow broader >and more capable of sustaining these influxes. > >The disrobing comes later. > >All religion and all mystical traditions are wardrobes. >When you catch Brahman naked, >see how long it takes for clothes to appear again. Beautiful! Yes, I wonder if we have to do a certain amount of this just to remember anything about it. 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.