The Highest Form of Spiritual Practice (Quote of the Week)
by Andrew Cohen | November 1, 2010 at 12:13pm | 150 comments
The highest form of spiritual practice, for those of us who aspire to create Heaven on Earth, is our relationships with one another. That means being willing to sacrifice anything and everything so that the intersubjective world of our shared culture becomes the stage on which the spiritual reality of who we really are, beyond our separate egos, comes to the fore. Think about it: If Spirit always comes before self, then the self that we are will always manifest as Spirit first. What could be more important than this if we want to change our world?
Filed Under: Cultural Evolution • Culture • EnlightenNext Editors’ Blog • Evolutionary Enlightenment • Quote of the Week • Spirituality
I think that “heaven on earth” means different things for different people since we all have different interests, beliefs, heritage and dreams. In open society we respect each others differences which makes us who we are as individuals and embrace diversity. Therefore most of us don’t need to neglect ourselves, our own Self, in order to belong to something. The only thing needed to belong is mutual respect to each other. Our Ego is our Spirit, it’s the most valuable thing about us. I feel sad for those who are unable to see that, those who have to hide from open society to be able to feel that they belong to something and that they are understood only in a close circle where only a few people understand what they mean. Being misunderstood constantly is a heavy burden, but running and hiding isn’t a solution since one can’t run away from him- or herself.
Hi Elly, !Yes!, Spirit is Ego, but I have to disagree with you in calling it “the most valuable thing about us.” When the rational mind unfolds in the ego stage of development, beginning in late childhood through the teen years and into young adulthood, we are going through a very valuable stage of development, but it isn’t the end of the story. Ego/rational mind can never unite with Spirit; it’s capacities are not subtle enough to engage the dimensions of phenomena in which we can genuinely contact our Spiritual Selves. The rational mind can imagine,pretend,rationalize,philosophize,ignore,repress, choose,cognize,fantasize,etc. But *personal development* is its capacity, not trans-personal development, which means personal-plus – this is the realm of the Soul. The active agents of Spirit wait beyond the rational mind -the trans-rational or rational-plus. Intuition,symbolic sight,subtle body phenomena,etc., all emerge with the identification with the Soul, not the ego/rational mind,and while that is not strictly so, it is generally so.
The good news,and the point Andrew is making,is that in each and every moment we can transcend our “egos” so that we are genuinely engaging others with our Authentic Selves. This is what he means by creating Heaven on Earth. If the ego is transcended to such a degree that only the authentic,undefended,radically free energy which is our true nature is the One communicating, the Beauty of Life is always being manifested, and indeed, Earth becomes Heavenly.
I welcome any response you have to my reply,
LOL (;}
Do you really think we have a choice in every moment to choose between ego or authentic self. Because my experience is that sometimes we don’t have a choice, or maybe we do, but we don’t know that we do, and so we are lost.
I agree with Rohan, and why would we have to choose at all when we can just be ourselves at all times
So well said, Elly – just be ourselves all time! Just Being is the ultimate Freedom and no one has the right to pretend that he knows better for us. We are free and authentic and that is everybody’s birth right.
Hi Aliya, thanx, I think you are right, no matter what religion we choose to believe in it is important that it is are own personal belief and not a duplicate of someone else’s belief as an order or a form of law. This is why rationale thinking is so valuable, it helps us separate our own belief from other people’s belief. If we just for a while let go of the buddhistic view of “ego” as something false and view the term as referring to “myself” the self value of each individual might become more apparent. If viewing “ego” as “myself” it places the individual in the center of the thinking process and all thoughts suddenly have a “self- value ” that wasn’t present in the previous definition. When realizing and admitting yourself as a part of the cognitive process, you suddenly boost your self esteem by regaining control over yourself.
“Hi Aliya, thanx, I think you are right, no matter what religion we choose to believe in it is important that it is are own personal belief and not a duplicate of someone else’s belief as an order or a form of law.”
Dear Elly,
have I ever said that we should choose to believe in some religion??? Definitely Not. I have never proclaimed any choosing or believing! I have always insisted on just Being, and choosing is not needed for being your true self; I have always insisted on Knowing By Your Own Experiencing so that no believing is needed. Because believing means”You don’t know”. Now, after clarifying your misinterpretation of other’s words you probably will better understand how the “rationale thinking” you value so much, works by misleading and deceiving you. What you call “rationale thinking” is in fact projecting your own thoughts, as prejudiced and programmed as every thought is, on others. Thinking means displaying a veil of thoughts, imaginations, illusions, prejudices etc. in front of your eyes which veil separates you from seeing directly into existence. This mind veil refrains you from being one with the One, the Non Duality. Ego is this veil of thoughts and illusions for you being separate of all the Creation and the Creator, for you being enclosed in some “myself”, which moreover you claim to be able to control!
Only when you stop identifying yourself with your ego veil will the ego lose its grasp on you. Only when you will be capable of separating yourself from your thoughts, when you understand that you are not your mind, you are not your thinking, neither are you your body, but something infinitely much more, will you be able to move into your real Being.
The way of disidentifying yourself from your mind / ego thoughts is called watchfulness, observation, awareness or meditation. As simple as that:)
Hi Aliya, how can we stop thinking while knowing we don’t think? The only way to know your are not thinking is to think about it: that your not thinking:))
“The only way to know your are not thinking is to think about it: that your not thinking:))” – No, Elly the only way towards not thinking is not to just try to stop it (because that you can never manage – more you try more the thoughts will be jumping over you like monkeys). The only way towards not thinking is to watch your thoughts – look at them passing by, unattached to them, non identified with them. Your thoughts are not you – they are like the clouds passing on the infinite sky. You are not the clouds, you are the sky – infinite and eternal. More you watch the thoughts in meditation, less they will become, and bigger the gaps between them. In those gaps is your being, you just ARE. Unless you know that being, you have never lived.
Hello Aliya, re: “when you will be capable of separating yourself from your thoughts, when you understand that you are not your mind, you are not your thinking, neither are you your body, but something infinitely much more, will you be able to move into your real Being.”
Chiming into your statement, I’d edit somewhat to conform more with how I understand operating as an Authentic Self and your real Being:
The Transcendent Ego or the Real Being acts in a spontaneous way responding to life situations without much if any thought. Sometimes a situation is so complicated that it requires thinking to make an appropriate response but usually doing the right thing eventually becomes matter of course for those who have truly transcended their self-centered ego and operate with a transcended one.
I wonder if you can concur of if you will not be able to go along with my statement?
Hi Elly, Your insistence on personally forming your own POV makes me a bit apprehensive.
If it leads to individualistic “Leave me alone, let me do my own thing” and not be open to ideas that will avoid your tryig to reinvent the wheel as far as wisdom is concerned, I’d say that’s not so wise.
I think it’s important in being open and being able to recognize good ideas. We can’t all be so original and brilliant but to be able to recognize ideas we can incorporate is a good way to go, isn’t it?
I saw your above comment that you seem to understand this.
Season’s best wishes and Aloha!
What I meant to say above is:
(prevent) your attempt to re-invent wisdom
Hi Rohan,I like your name(;}! Yes,I know that it can be done because when it really! happens, you walk away kinda buzzed and happy and light. Can that happen all the time? It’s co-dependent; the others involved have to be leading with their Authentic Selves, too. But even if they’re not, you can continue to do your part and maybe have an influence on them…that’s really the point! I don’t mean manipulate, of course, but *infuse* with the free energy you’re giving because the energy beyond the false/separate self is Spirit in all its Freedom.
One has to develop the capacity to recognize their own habitual contraction away from genuine and free engagement with the world. What’s to defend, after all? The more you recognize how and why you contract in defensiveness, the more capable you become to rid yourself of it forever! In my experience, it took fearless awareness of my insecurities and a radical claiming of responsibility with each and every occassion I felt myself contracting. The more I did it, the better I got at it, until it was my *natural* response to be my Authentic Self; I, in essence, Became IT.
Thanks for the great, simple query; I hope I *infused* you with my answer…
(:}LOL
Rohan, P.S., Projection is a defense of the false-self,too. Have you ever talked with someone who is just dead set on forcing their agenda on you; they “know” and you don’t? That’s not the same as sharing or informing or teaching, where there is intimate exchange united with clarity and assertiveness. The false-self projects because it needs to be right, which is a defense to stay separate. They actually believe they’re giving you something valuable because they’re unconscious of their agenda. It’s hard to walk away “enlightened” by them, feeling joy about life’s potentials, and instead you feel heavy or oppressed. So that is not the Authentic Self, either. I’m sure you know what I’m talking about!
Just thought I’d clarify…
LOL (;}
Hello Nada, re: “The false-self projects because it needs to be right, which is a defense to stay separate. They actually believe they’re giving you something valuable because they’re unconscious of their agenda.”
Just playing with the idea and submitting:
We humans who usually are so resentful of others suggesting what we should rather know than what we believe is right for us and being so “anti-authoritarian”, have you been in situations where initially you resisted the intervention or even the suggestion that you were off base (even maybe becoming angry) and then on further thought, came to realize that the interlocutor was right after all or not as stupid as you had first thought?
Just to put that out there, not to be too hasty in being open to self-improvement, even when brought up by others.
Best, FL
Hello Rohan, re: “Do you really think we have a choice in every moment to choose between ego or authentic self. Because my experience is that sometimes we don’t have a choice, or maybe we do, but we don’t know that we do, and so we are lost.”
When the Authentic Self becomes developed more and more, the self-centered ego eventuallly becomes disempowered so that your actions will be unegoistic. Your spiritual development is strengthened by doing the right thing.
When a difficult spiritual predicament is surmounted, spiritual development advances. The more difficult, the more the advancement.
Best wishes for your advancement!
Aloha, namaste!
Hi Nada, first let’s look at the terminology;
“spirit” can denote to a lot of different meanings but it’s a non-corporeal substance. Second, “ego” is part of this none – substance. If I would ask you to point out the location where the thought or action occurs when you think of 2+2 or 1+1 or anything else you wouldn’t be able to do it, no one would. People can believe that they know where these actions occur but, but that’s belief and not knowledge. The rationale, the knowledge of 2+2 =4 is due to common sense, our rationale in trough Ego, even though we can’t point out were exactly it is. This far we are in line with science, because there are a lot of beliefs but no one actually Knows where the mind, spirit, ego is located.
I have to question this following statement:
“transcend our “egos” so that we are genuinely engaging others with our Authentic Selves”
why would anyone want to “go beyond” (if this is what you refer to) your own rationale?
Are you familiar with “Cogito, ergo sum”? If so, why would you want to disregard your own capability to think, the only thing about you that proves your existence and that makes it possible for you to reason for yourself in order for something that no one except a few people call “authentic self”. If there would be such a thing as “authentic self” synonymous with “real self” or the “real you”, isn’t it a paradox that if you are to achieve this you have to give up yourself?
Think about it, isn’t it more logical that the real you is already within you just that you haven’t found it yet. If you give up everything that is you, you’re never gonna find it. My point is that you are the only one that knows what “heaven on earth” is and means to you, and the “heaven on earth” for you is not the same as “heaven on earth” for me.
Hi Elly,It’s important to remember that “transcendence” is not a “getting rid of” but an “enveloping within to include.”Body/Mind/Ego as a deep stucture of your development never goes away,it is enveloped and included in the next stage of development as an important inclusion to further development.Ego as a structure(much to the surprise of many)is *still* there,but transformed;even with Enlightenment.Deep structures are BODY/MIND/SOUL/SPIRIT.In development,the Ego is the exclusive identification with Body/Mind.In the sense that “in the moment” we can transcend our separate-false selves, is to say that we enter the intersubjective(the space between you and I in communication)without defending or guarding that separateness(ego),which looks *outside itself and sees others* which then can create a *contraction away from* engaging in the intersubjective with Authenticity.And as Rohan pointed out,How can we know we are doing this”by choice?”Because of our ongoing efforts, we make ourselves conscious how we “contract” and why.Practice!,in other words.If you feel insecure,anxious,defensive,etc.,you are contracted and leading with the false-self,not the Authentic Self. And let me say that I enjoy my rational mind very much! but its been transformed thru transcendence/development, enfolded into the Higher Illumined Mind in service of the Self.Still there,very active,but positively and ultimately different than it was with pure ego identification.You can point to your body because its a physical thing,but mind?soul?spirit?If you point to one thing, you’ve pointed to them all,since all of those are always present as Spirit which surrounds and permeates all things inseparably. God is Transcendence;Goddess Immanence,Ground is the Inexplicable Source of All.Thx for responding!(;}LOL
“Body/Mind/Ego as a deep stucture of your development never goes away,it is enveloped and included in the next stage of development as an important inclusion to further development.Ego as a structure(much to the surprise of many)is *still* there,but transformed;even with Enlightenment”
Nada, you make very clear attempts to identify ego with body/mind and to determine ego as part of deep structure. Beaware of the non existential approach your mind projections and illsuions lead you into! Ego is not body/mind – body/mind are real while ego is unreal, false, illusions made falsity. In transcendence ego disappears, slips away as darkness goes away when light comes in.
Hi Aliya,So that you can better understand my comments,I’d like to explain my usage of the psychological term “ego,”but need to add up-front that “ego” has been co-opted by many spiritualists as a talking point concerning development “out of ego.” So ego has been made into the pit in the pie,the ghost in the machine,”a big coward with a powerful grasp.”
Webster’s:Ego;the self;the individual as self-aware;that part of the psyche which experiences the external world,or reality,through the senses,organizes the thought processes rationally,and governs action.Ken Wilber,”Atman Project,A Transpersonal View of Human Development”…”the story of the Hero,is the story of the ego,for the ego *is* the Hero;the story of its emergence from unconsciousness – the conflicts,growths,terrors rewards and anxieties.”The ego emerges in childhood as body-ego”,and “For a variety of reasons,the child’s self-sense gradually centers around syntaxical-membership cognition-linear,conceptual,abstract,consensus-verbal thinking decisively enters every element of awareness…the self is no longer a fleeting amorphous self-image,not merely a word or name,but a higher-order unity of auditory, verbal,dialoging” “This auditory,conceptual,syntaxical self is the egoic level proper with nearly all aspects of the self-sense.” “each level of consciousness consists of deep structure and surface structure,” “A deep structure is like a pardigm,and contains within it all the basic limiting principles in terms of which all surface structures are realized,”i.e..the deep structure of the “ego” is the same for all,the surface structures of the ego are different from person to person(I am different than you on the surface,not in the depths). If you are still convinced,Aliya,that the ego is a a “coward,” read on…
Aliya:Part 2;”The gross mind” is the “physical ego,”hence my use of Body/Mind/Ego…”the gross body and the gross ego as constituting the overall gross realm-is in close agreement with standard Buddhist psychology.. for the Nirmanakaya is the five senses and the manovijnana -the mind involved with the senses. D.T. Suzuki equates this with both the ego of Western psychology and the logical-empirical intellect.” Are we clear yet on MY usage? Wait, there’s more…
Sri Aurobindo: “Our ego is only the face of the universal being and *has no separate existence*;our apparent separative individuality is only a surface movement and behind it our real individuality stretches out to unity with all things and upward to oneness with the transcendent Divine Infinity. THUS OUR EGO, WHICH SEEMS TO BE A LIMITATION OF EXISTENCE, IS REALLY A POWER OF INFINITY;the boundless multiplicity of beings in the world is a result and signal evidence, not of limitation or finiteness,but of that illimitable Infinity.Apparent division can never erect itself into a real separateness;there is supporting and overriding it an *indivisible unity* which division itself cannot divide. THIS FUNDAMENTAL WORLD-FACT OF EGO AND APPARENT DIVISION AND THEIR SEPARATIVE WORKINGS IN THE WORLD EXISTENCE IS NO DENIAL OF THE DIVINE NATURE OF UNITY AND INDIVISIBLE BEING;THEY ARE THE SURFACE RESULTS OF AN INFINITE MULTIPLICITY WHICH IS A POWER OF THE INFINITE ONENESS.”
Ego is a term, Aliya, not a thing. A TERM – for a valuable stage and level of beginning development into concrete cognitive processess that do not go anywhere with transcendence and transformation, but are enfolded into the higher capacity and used to the greater purpose of continued development beyond exclusive identification with the gross world. LOL
Dear Nada, why don’t you leave Webster’s Ego to Webster?!
By the way, the need to find “Heroes” reveals deep psychological wound and a complex of inferiority.
For one thing, however, you are right, Nada – “Ego is a term, not a thing”. And as a mere term ego is a mind product, a mind imagination and illusion, created by the mind incapability to perceive Existence beyond its own limitations. Being a term Ego does not have existentiality, does not have reality, but is false.
Existence is not consisted of terms, Nada, Existence is not a terminology. And Thanks God!!! Otherwise you yourself would have been just a word in some thick dust covered dictionary.
Hi Aliya, The very good reason why behaviorial scientists,psychologists,Joseph Campbell,Ken Wilber,Sri Aurobindo,Andrew Cohen(to name a few) talk about the “Hero” so much, is because it is the A#1 archetypal form already enveloped within the psyche prior to manifestation on this plane(birth), and its value to realizing Spirit’s unfolding is profound and unavoidable(because it unfolds as ego development ensues). In fact, the knowledgable claim of all those listed above is that all underdeveloped ego’s are indeed suffering with lack of contact with the Hero within. Instead of greeting life fearlessly, they are contracted in fear. Instead of having the self-awareness to “save the world,” they believe the world is there to save them, etc, and that’s a neurotic, or pathological ego.
So the HERO, whether you are female or male, is the first and most important impulse of the psyche to “individuate” and “create” in the world in positive and healthy ways, and to serve transformation of the self and culture, and therefore, transform the Universe.
In Humble Service of the Self
LOL (;}
By the way, Aliya, why don’t we add more clarity to the topic of “terms”, shall we?
You use “TERMS”, in fact, you have some favorite ones like “non-duality” which is a term, just like “ego” is a term, and “mind junk,” “human mind projection,” etc…
The contradiction of someone who simultaneously uses “terms” and condemns the use of “terms” is further upheld by the very fact that you wouldn’t even be able to communicate unless you developed into the ego stage in which cognitive-syntaxical structures emerge and the ongoing use of terms becomes the very way you communicate with the world. Wrap your “human mind junk” around that!
All Is Freely Given,
LOL
Dear Nada,
If there was a Hero as “a archetypal form already enveloped within the psyche prior to manifestation on this plane(birth)”, then this “Hero” or whatever you call it is the real YOU, your eternal and essence Being. But then my question to you is – what is the need for your eternal Being as infinite and unlimited as the Being is, to make out of itself “a hero” instead of just being the way it is already – eternal and unlimited? And is not the need to produce heroes in this world (“”plane””) or in the other world (plane) just another projection of your fearful limited human mind? The mind ego is fearful because it knows its falsity, non existentiality. All your fears are from the mind, because mind is limited. Mind is just an instrument of yours, useful for your every day life, but still an instrument. You, your Inner most Being are the Master and the mind is your servant.
Then instead of strenghtening your mind ego by imagining it as “a world saviour, realizing Spirit’s unfolding”(???), why don’t you just transcend your mind and its false illusory ego by starting to meditate? Meditation’s ultimate conclusion is, live the moment to its totality, intensively, joyously, because there is nothing to be feared – because even death is a fiction. There is no need for any security, for any safety. Live moment to moment, trusting the whole existence as the birds are trusting it, as the trees are trusting it. Don’t separate yourself from existence, become part of it and existence will take care of you. It is already taking care of you.
Anything that is connected with fear, a mature person should disconnect himself from. That´s how maturity comes. Just watch all your acts, all your beliefs,
and find out whether they are based in reality, in experience, or based in fear.
And anything based in fear has to be dropped immediately without a second thought. It is your armor.
You can make a big list and you will be surprised how many fears are there,
and still you are alive! There are infections all around,
diseases, dangers, kidnapping, terrorists…and such a small life.
And finally there is death, which you cannot avoid —
your whole life will become dark.
Drop the fear.
Fear was taken up by you in your childhood, unconsciously.
Now consciously drop it and be mature.
Then the life can be a light which goes on deepening as you go on growing (with excerpts from Osho talks)
Hi Nada, on which plane were we before we came here to planet earth?
And how do I know that the A#1 archetypal form is enveloped within me?
Hi Nada, I don’t know what the word ”seeker” means to you but as I’ve mentioned above I embrace new ideas and I’m curious to here them out. If this is where I’ll find myself – well, let’s see.
No offense but why are you advertising ”generativ semantics” which is a part of Dianetics, used by, amongst others, The Church of Scientology?
“I use psychological/spiritual terms, no matter where they originated from, because they are simultaneously valid-they represent Universal knowledge and are therefore not limited to their own framework.”
I’m not criticizing you for being a scientologist (if you are) or sharing their belief, just that I thought that in your use ”Authentic self” is other than ego itself which you’ve claim frequently in your comments. Are you familiar with NLP?
So in your words, in order for us to have a successful conversation we need to reach ”authentic self” as mutual ground, that is, not considering each other as objects but subjects united by the same phenomenon?
I’m still curious about this: Do you believe in the Christian God? (if not, what are you referring to by ”God”?)
Oh,I felt I needed to add, Elly…You don’t give anything up when you transcend and transform, except loads of false identifications and self-imposed limitations. Those absolutely HAVE TO GO! And when they do, you are MORE yourself than you were before; MORE clarity,passion,creativity,love,wisdom,service,integrity,energy,etc…You are freely expansive because rationality and intuition have been brought together in Union, providing greater purpose and meaning to serve Life more fully. It is very important to develop the rational mind as a capacity, but it MUST be transcended (enveloped and included) with its exclusive identification with itself before the Soul can be genuinely engaged and identified with. Again, the rational mind doesn’t “go” anywhere; it is just called into service of the higher transformation.
It was interesting getting your perspective,
LOL
Hi Nada, I’m slightly surprised by your answers. I embrace radical ideas but there seems to be a lot of a confusion between Buddhism and Christianity in your comments.
– Do you mean that we are unable to look “outside ourselves and see others “ if we are unaware of the “Authentic Self?”
- In your believes only those who are aware of the phenomenon “Authentic Self” can truly communicate, for the rest of us – well we are lost hopes.
- Are you ( and be honest) claiming that these emotions;” insecure,anxious,defensive” are not natural human emotions? That they are part of a false – self ?
- And then, after talking of the ego as a “false – self “ you claim that “I enjoy my rational mind very much!” Well, rationality, thought, is a part of the ego. In general, ”ego” refers to ” I myself” as in Cogito ergo sum, which means ”Think, therefore you are” (notice that ergo is 2nd person pronoun in Latin, ”ego” is 1st person pronoun)
- Are you sure that Buddhists believe in the Christian God? ( think twice before answering)
Explicitly, you are claiming that most natural feelings are in fact false, they prevent us from communicating in a manner where we truly understand each other, and in order to truly communicate we have to ”contract” in the sense of bargain between our own self, ego, which according to you is false and deceiving, and an illusion called ”authentic self” which is synonymous with the perfect human, the alter ego, and that this is intended by the Christian God?
Wow,Elly!I apologize if I was truly that unclear!Look,I could tell by your original comment that you were probably *not* a spiritual “seeker,” but I thought I’d try anyway to build upon A.C.’s Quote in ref. to yours.So that’s the question;Are you interested at all in spiritual development? If not, anything I say will be a moot point. And if yes,then we can continue a meaningful dialog,but I will refer you to Andrew Cohen’s teaching & his definition of Authentic Self.
Based in my direct perception and integrated experience of the realms of consciousness available to my Body/Mind/Soul,and as a secular person in Western society,I’ve translated that experience into an Integral/Evolutionary(developmental)framework, because my impulse to Life is to integrate the presiding Universals of ALL human experience into a coherent understanding and subsequent translation.”Integral” in part means;I use psychological/spiritual terms,no matter where they originated from,because they are simultaneously valid-they represent Universal knowledge and are therefore not limited to their own framework.
I try to give concrete examples in ref. to the discussion,so my use of “contracted self” was to give *one* good example of how we don’t greet the “intersubjective” with authenticity.Here’s the point;A neurotic ego compulsively “contracts,” a healthy ego may not contract,but no matter where you are in the shades between,the Ego as a concrete stage of development,identifies with the gross/physical/material realm,it resides in “duality;” it is “subject” and “things” are seen as outside of it as “objects.”In spiritual terms,that duality must be transcended,because in those same terms we are ALL ONE,not-two.I’m attaching a quote on “Self” by Sri Aurobindo,one of India’s greatest philosopher sages:
For Elly – Sri Aurobindo from “The Life Divine”
“As soon as we become aware of the (Authentic)Self, we are conscious of it as eternal, unborn, unembodied, uninvolved in its workings:it can be felt within the form(body/mind)of being,but also as enveloping it, as above it, surveying its embodiment from above, adhyaksa; it is omnipresent,the same in everything, infinite and pure and intangible for ever. This Self can be experienced as the Self of the individual, the Self of the thinker, doer, enjoyer, but even so it always has this greater character; its individuality is at the same time a vast universality or very readily passes into that, and the next step to that is sheer transcendence or a complete and ineffable passing into the Absolute. The Self is that aspect of Brahman in which it is intimately felt as at once individual, cosmic, transcendent of the universe.”
I hope this provides some clarity for you, Elly, in what Andrew Cohen means by saying, “spiritual reality of who we really are beyond our separate egos.”
Happy Sunday!
LOL (:}
Nada,
I really relate to your writings. Great quality of thought. I think that the Subject/Object divide is the challenge of present times and that’s why Advaita is so popular. But Advaita is not cognizant of evolution–a major shortcoming. This third thread (evolution) has to be woven into the matrix of our understanding. Reality is not only self and other but time as well.
Advaita finds itself in the same position that the Christians did when Copernicus discovered that the Earth wasn’t the center of the Universe, the Sun was–relatively speaking. Well, Advaita wants changelessness but changelessness is only one part of a duality that includes change. If Advaitists want to be really true to non-duality they must forego the prejudice of their most cherished assumption and become open to the whole of Life.
Thanks! Caroline, I really enjoy your responses,too! You are very approachable with your language use and tone. Oh my! I think we’ve stumbled upon the Authentic Self within an intersubjective realm that seems to be expressing itself as a Spiritual Practice! How odd…it does exist! (Tee hee)
It’s not rocket science, right? And it’s not separating God or Spirit or Tao or Brahman,etc. out of our “human mind junk,” but instead embracing that humanity as Spirit expressing itself through us, as us, so we can find commonality of purpose and praise of Spirit’s many manifest unfoldings. I couldn’t relate to an Advaita stance; it’s pure transcendence and no Immanence… Presence in Forms. All the phenomena we witness is evidence of Spirit’s Presence, all things in our heads and outside of us as objects contain the liberating Emptiness…this is what “tantra” knows and practices;creating awareness of Emptiness through Forms because they are inseparably Not-Two!
It’s funny and great that we are all(well, almost all) expressing practically the same thing, and that our authentic(not defended or projected)efforts with that expression really matter!
I consider this intersubjective space one good way of practicing language use that is meant to inform and elevate,and would like to think that’s the direct intention of others as a part of a spiritual practice that won’t allow for a “language of separation,” that all perspectives are valid, but arrogance needs to be checked at the door! so our most authentic voices can be shared.
Have a Great Holiday!
LOL (:}
Hi Nada, I don’t know what the word ”seeker” means to you but as I’ve mentioned above I embrace new ideas and I’m curious to here them out. If this is where I’ll find myself – well, let’s see.
No offense but why are you advertising ”generativ semantics” which is a part of Dianetics, used by, amongst others, The Church of Scientology?
“I use psychological/spiritual terms, no matter where they originated from, because they are simultaneously valid-they represent Universal knowledge and are therefore not limited to their own framework.”
I’m not criticizing you for being a scientologist (if you are) or sharing their belief, just that I thought that in your use ”Authentic self” is other than ego itself which you’ve claim frequently in your comments. Are you familiar with NLP?
So in your words, in order for us to have a successful conversation we need to reach ”authentic self” as mutual ground, that is, not considering each other as objects but subjects united by the same phenomenon?
I’m still curious about this: Do you believe in the Christian God? (if not, what are you referring to by ”God”?)
Hi Elly, re: “I’ve mentioned above I embrace new ideas”
I hope you don’t mind my asking what your objective is in doing that?
Do you incorporate that in your spiritual development or is it mere intellectual pursuit (not meaning to denigrate)?
Hi Frank, re:Hi Elly, re:” “I’ve mentioned above I embrace new ideas”
I hope you don’t mind my asking what your objective is in doing that?
Do you incorporate that in your spiritual development or is it mere intellectual pursuit (not meaning to denigrate)?”
To be able to incorporate this into my spiritual development I need clarity in what certain things refer to. If the arguments are plausible I’m willing to look beyond what so many doubt and give it a shot. If this is a sensational idea to the point where it would make my surrounding heavenly then why wouldn’t I engage in it.
My intellectual pursuit follows elsewhere, I doubt this is going to be a substantial awakening on that point, but I stand corrected. What’s your reason for engaging in this?
Hi again,Elly!Let me start by saying; In this type of format,it’s best not to read into statements and suppose something said means something other than what is stated. So,no,I am definitely NOT a scientologist.And, since you seem to have an identification of the word “God” with Christianity, I feel the need to give you a little primer on this fact:Many of the individuals on this site use words like Spirit,the Absolute,Tao,God Brahman & Nonduality,(etc.),interchangeably, since they are all words representative of the Ineffable Mystery that we are interested in expressing and exploring in discussion in this Intersubjective Worldspace called the Internet. To “seek” means you have become very interested in spiritual exploration and discovery,which indeed involves the intellect,but has the potential of ultimately transforming your self-sense, since true spiritual seeking is the most profound of all desires – to Unite with Spirit as your own Awareness. Spirit is the Ground of your Awareness,right Now,and every Now! That’s why we can be the expression of Spirit at *every moment,* but only if our petty self-concern is absent does it become “authentic” in the true sense. So,in spiritual practice,we aim for an absence of self-concern, and a presence of Self,because Spirit is more obviously and freely manifested thru us, as us, in an uninhibited give and take of energy and thought and care. I can confidently say that many who contribute here are not unlike me; willing and able to use a variety of language based in the Traditions and more modern expressions like Interal Theory & Evolutionary Enlightenment which takes much of its base from Buddhism,but is very dedicated to exploring and transforming culture through the individual and collective.
I hope I’ve clarified!LOL(:}
Hi Nada,
re: ;” In this type of format,it’s best not to read into statements and suppose something said means something other than what is stated.”
Well, you basically quoted the definition of generative semantics by referring to “frameworks”, more commonly known as frames, as unlimited to their semantic boundries, which is incorrect. I advice you to look into Grinder’s “NLP” (neurolinguistic programming) and why it’s been criticized, this might bring some clarity to why definitions are limited in their “frame” associations.
In general “God” refers to the Christian God, “Allah” refers to the Islamic God, “Ganesh” and “Shiva” are hindu gods. When you state “God” while saying you are Buddhist the only thing I can relate it with is that you mean Buddha and not God.
Since you are referring to Advaita, which is a hinduist belief, I take it that you believe in a fusion between Hinduism and Buddhism. They are closely related but not the same. Do you believe in the hindu Gods as well?
Further, I’m well familiar with the theory of “Monism”, however I’ve never heard of “Onenism”. I take it that you’re referring to the monism since you believe in Advaita, right? If you are using terms that are only used in your community than it becomes difficult for those who are not part of this to know what you mean. If I started writing comments in Japanese, presumed you don’t know Japanese, you wouldn’t understand what I said, right? These are not Buddhist terms by the way.
to be continued in following comment
to Nada part 2,
re:“I feel the need to give you a little primer on this fact:Many of the individuals on this site use words like Spirit,the Absolute,Tao,God Brahman & Nonduality,(etc.),interchangeably”
By “ interchangeably” do you mean that these terms refer to the same thing?
I’m gonna help you answer this by listing the meaning of the following terms based on some very reliable sources:
Nonduality – is synonymous with Monism ( probably what you refer to as Onenism or Oneness)
Brahman – Spirit , foundation of being ( probably what you call Authentic Self)
Atman – Ego, personal spirit
Moksha – to break free from the ongoing present in the ordinary world ( probably what you call trancendence)
So Tao and God refer to the same thing?
Hi Elly, re: “– Do you mean that we are unable to look “outside ourselves and see others “ if we are unaware of the “Authentic Self?”
If I may submit, I’d say that if you are unaware of your personal Authentic Self but only know about it, you are involved in a mere intellectual exercise. All real spiritual understanding is personal and requires you to discover that truly Authentic Self, personally.
With that understanding, I believe you become more committed to that lifestyle that will foster and attempt to work to bring about a better world for all.
Hi Frank, how does the “intersubjectivness” come into play if we are to do this “awakening” personally, that is, individually. Isn’t the interaction based on the participation of at least two individuals at once?
Hi Elly, TY for responding to my asking your objective in your pursuit of knowledge. I like and try to understand where people are coming from and appreciate your response.
Re: intersubjectivity requiring other parties
I think it’s more accurate to regard the intersubjectivity as relating with a collective Other, all the others who are pursuing and developing if not attaining their Authentic Self. Can you dig that?
Hi Frank, I really appreciate the way you express an embodiment of Authentic Self; that it must be “personally” felt as it is expressed back into the intersubjective world. You’ve hit directly upon an actual developmental stage when you speak of a “Transcended Ego,”as a good measure of expressible authenticity,as compared to a defended, separate ego struggling to interact without contracting behind a false boundary and illusion of safety. That is really what we’re talking about is an illusion of boundary. When the fledgling ego has developed the rational capacity, it cements the sense of *solidity* into its reference of the world. This in turn becomes its “vision”, the very perspective it takes of “self” and “other.” The person who develops a “healthy” ego, and begins to break through the cement and transcend that boundary, will very subtly feel the dissolution of separateness and actually begin to experience the self of the other as not other than themselves(Self and Other are Not-Two). This is a profound turning point, because “care of the world” becomes genuine, and because the thought of “myself first” is almost completely absent. And if a self-thought does arise,the “Transcended Ego”is in position to self-correct, in-the-moment,to choose otherwise. The self is becoming aware,just barely but stably perceiving, it’s True,Higher,Real,Authentic, Self. The growing sense of it is self-validating,building a deeper and lasting connection and integration.
Thanks for your balanced input and care of the Intersubjective!
LOL (:}
Hi Nada! and back to you for your thanks re: Intersubjectivity balanced views!
It’s gratifying to have your comprehension. It seems there are still those who comment here who seem not to comprehend this spiritual POV and EnlightenmentNext’s message that spritual thinking has moved on in our 21st century.
Best wishes for your happy holiday season!
Hi nada, re:
“You don’t give anything up when you transcend and transform, except loads of false identifications and self-imposed limitations.”
I submit that what’s given up or relinquished is the self-involved self-ish ego that adopts and attains a higher consciousness not so focused on personal goals except the one committed to bringing about a bettered world and planet all would wish to inhabit.
It seems it’s difficult for some to relinquish the concept I’ve proposed. Would you agree wih my formulation or not?
Correction to the above comment:
I submit that what’s given up or relinquished is the self-involved self-ish ego and then adopts and attains a higher consciousness not so focused on personal goals except the one committed to bringing about a bettered world and planet all would wish to inhabit.
Nada, I’m so gratified to have your comprehension of my formulation of that concept. It seems many are so indoctrinated with Freud’s ego w/o understanding it can be transcended perhaps by his Superego but more the way I describe it as being developed with higher consciousness, otherwise dormant in most humans.
You expressing your gratitude for all the blessings you and we Americans all enjoy?
Best wishes for a happy and delicioius Thanksgiving to all!
Hi Frank, I feel it’s fairly obvious when an individual has surrendered their contracted,self-involved “me-isms” and is applying their personal will to “betterment” of the intersubjective community, whether near or far, on-line or off,in work or play. And I feel a world full of people with Transcended Egos is a far better place because that subtle stage of development provides wider, deeper,higher embrace and care without prejudice and marginalization, plus greater understanding of the importance of a language that doesn’t allow the fragmentation and separation to prevail. I can tell that you have a well-integrated “transcended ego” because your language expresses a heart-felt concern that doesn’t come across as false or self-focused, but more importantly, doesn’t rely on worn-out myths. As I said below(see comment to Caroline/You),the subtle intertwining of Ego and the psychic/subtle capacities of the Soul is a very interesting stage of development, because the personal and trans-personal have met and a new union, and therefore,a new being is emerging. I personally experienced this stage years ago, so I know of what you speak, and even though I wasn’t totally beyond defensive contraction, I could recognize if I was feeling this way and self-correct in-the-moment, and provide a better response to whatever was arising. I also sensed that whatever I was doing in the world was not for only me, but was serving a higher purpose for an All too Ineffable and Awesome to cognize, hence,the subtle intertwining of my Soul-self with my Ego-self with the Ego undergoing transformation (not disappearing like a puff of smoke)and feeling its own enlargement to the point of its own astonishment! A very real, discernable move from exclusive identification with the gross world.
Thx again!
I’m looking forward to your reply to this, Nada, any reply at all:)) RARLOL
Human mind is especially proficient in creating ideals and setting goals in front of us describing beautifully decorated “aspirations to create heaven on earth”, “shared culture” and so on and so forth. That is the specialty of the mind in order to enhance its mind product – the Ego. Ego can exist only in aspiring, doing, striving. That is a very subtle trick of the false ego to reject the only reality there is – being here and now and to make you move towards the false land of illusions, projections, aspirations, ideals and ideas.
Ego is scared to death of you being here and now, of you being real, because then ego’s falsity will be immediately revealed and ego will simply disappear like a mist disappearing in the morning sun rays.
Ego is such a big coward that in order to keep you in its powerful grasp ego is ready to sacrifice you, your real being by frank appeals to you “to sacrifice anything and everything” for the sake of its own ego illusions. Keeping you dreaming, aspiring, intellectualizing, ego keeps you encaged in its falsity, away of the only reality there is, the reality of your being Now and Here, utterly aware, alert, watchful.
I take this opp to repeat what I’ve been promulgating that there’s the self-involved ego and then there’s the more expansive not self-nvolved EGO that is committed to attempting to foster a better world for all, altruistically.
When that higher consciousness is attained, self-involvement becomes less important and the good of all becomes paramount.
If it can be said to be self-involved (adopting the goal of a better world for all) it’s to say it’s a world that most personally would want, no?
Dear Frank,
Here again you are caught in terms contradicting. Altruistically means selflessness, egolessness, while you pretend to have determined something like “not self-involved Ego”, acting altruistically in selflessness??? Either it is ego or it is not ego! What is the need for you to insist on using the term of ego for the states of egolessness? Is this so much that you cherish the Ego that you are not ready to drop even the word?
It often happens when you have not the direct experiencing of truth you tend to get lost in endless mind definitions, categorizations, divisions, all of them though absolutely unreal, pure fantasy cut off existence and real life.
Hi Aliya,
I believe you are not accepting the concept of a Transcended Ego that has risen above the self-involved one we all share. Those who have attained a higher consciousness see that attaining Ego (big E) is akin to realizing the Authentic Self.
If you have difficulty with this concept, I believe you aren’t yet up to speed with spiritual developments of the modern age.
Dear Frank,
How can you claim to “transcend” something which is not at the first place? Ego is not, it is non existential, false, so what transcendence do you talk about??? Mind you can transcend and you should transcend in meditation so you know who you are. Osho says it so beautifully:
“When you have emptied all the content — thoughts, desires, memories, projections, hopes — when all is gone, for the first time you find yourself, because you are nothing but that pure space, that virgin space within you.
Unburdened by anything, that contentless consciousness, that´s what you are! Seeing it, realizing it, one is free. One is freedom, one is joy, one is bliss.”
My second question to you, Frank, is: – What is the need for you to transcend ego only to find another Big Ego – replacing the small with the bigger one??? And what a transcendence will it be when you replace with one another two similarities???
True transcendence of the ego is arriving in the state of Egolessness – full stop!!!
“If you have difficulty with this concept,” – Yes, I do have difficulties with every concept, though. Lies, prejudices, self deceiving conceptualizations make me feel uneasy. I feel at ease with Truth, only, with the Ultimate Reality, only!
Hi again, Frank, I think it’s pretty clear that Aliya is most certainly NOT into actual, stable development thru the “stages” described in perfect clarity by the Sages of all Spiritual/Religious Traditions and carried forward by The Moderns, like Andrew Cohen. She instead identifies with the temporary release with meditation where she perhaps discovers over and over again (unstably) that she is “already it”. Which is fine, but it makes her translation very narrow, reflecting her lack of stable development, which is why she offers us nothing new, but continues to be contradictory and full of the very duality she claims not to be. It’s confusing to know Spirit is present as the Suchness of our Awareness in every moment, but that there are stable stages of development that, if we are honest, take years to develop thru.
You were probably aware of that,but I thought I’d add my bit to the whirlpool of the unending dialog that finds no resolution or “moving forward from” into something new…
Peace
LOL (:}
Dear Nada,
You project once again your own delusions on others. That is what the real “mind junk” does consist of – imaginary and not based into reality projections and self delusions.
Otherwise you would have managed to know by now that non duality is not a mere term but the Ultimate reality you are in. And if you were not so busy projecting your own delusions on others you would have seen the Non Duality with your own eyes.
Hi Nada, TY for confirming what I’m trying to get Aliya to comprehend.
Her awareness of more modern thinking prevents her understanding. She could study some of the thinkers, among them Maslow who I believed coined the term “Authentic Self”, if I’m not mistaken. Then I think Andrew and many others can set her straight if she’s up for that.
Season’s best wishes to you and yours!
I meant to say (Aliya’s non-awareness of more modern thinking on the matter)
Dear Frank,
Why do you keep insisting on projecting your own unawareness on others? Do you think yourself the only aware person on the planet and everybody else who has a different opinion from yours to be unaware? Do you own the patent of awareness or something?
Your own awareness should be your utmost concern, your question of life and death. Others are irrelevant as far as your own inner development is concerned. First change yourself! The rest belongs to God.
Aliya, I wonder if you are aware that you come across sounding like a know-it-all (All) scolding school marm and would suggest you temper your outlook on respect of other commenters opinions.
If you differ, it can be expressed in a more questioning Socratic way, not as authoritarian as you come across, IMO.
Dear Frank,
At your place I would have asked myself for the reason which makes me so concerned and irritated by others’ opinions.
If you were firmly standing into your truth, you would not have been so easily disturbed by somebody else’s truth of being.
Hi Aliya,
Your questionings re: ego seems to still fail to understand my differentiating between ego (small E) and Ego (big E). If you continue to do that, you will not understand what not only I, but thinkers far more wise and qualified to speak of the matter.
Hi Frank, as I understand you distinguish “ego” into two subcategories: the “ordinary ego” and the “transcended ego”. The “ordinary ego” is unawakened and false while the “transcended ego” is intersubjective in the aspect of crossing the border between you and I when communication to the point where we can acctually see each other as subjects, that is, understand each others conscious state of mind, and not considering each other as objects?
What if the ego and the authentic self denotes to the same thing?
Hi Nada, first let’s look at the terminology;
“spirit” can denote to a lot of different meanings but it’s a non-corporeal substance. Second, “ego” is part of this none – substance. If I would ask you to point out the location where the thought or action occurs when you think of 2+2 or 1+1 or anything else you wouldn’t be able to do it, no one would. People can believe that they know where these actions occur but, but that’s belief and not knowledge. The rationale, the knowledge of 2+2 =4 is due to common sense, our rationale in trough Ego, even though we can’t point out were exactly it is. This far we are in line with science, because there are a lot of beliefs but no one actually Knows where the mind, spirit, ego is located.
I have to question this following statement:
“transcend our “egos” so that we are genuinely engaging others with our Authentic Selves”
why would anyone want to “go beyond” (if this is what you refer to) your own rationale?
Are you familiar with “Cogito, ergo sum”? If so, why would you want to disregard your own capability to think, the only thing about you that proves your existence and that makes it possible for you to reason for yourself in order for something that no one except a few people call “authentic self”. If there would be such a thing as “authentic self” synonymous with “real self” or the “real you”, isn’t it a paradox that if you are to achieve this you have to give up yourself?
Think about it, isn’t it more logical that the real you is already within you just that you haven’t found it yet. If you give up everything that is you, you’re never gonna find it. My point is that you are the only one that knows what “heaven on earth” is and means to you, and the “heaven on earth” for you is not the same as “heaven on earth” for me.
Hi Elly, re: “why would anyone want to “go beyond” (if this is what you refer to) your own rationale?”
Would you be able to accept my submitting there’s the all-too-human ordinary ego and then there’s the Transcended Ego? Perhaps you’re speaking about the latter where there’s an attainment of a higher consciousness that is less self-involved but more concerned with larger issues of bettering or at least maintaining the entire planet for all that inhabit it?
Your comment doesn’t make that distinction clearly so I ask if you can entertain the Transcended Ego idea or not?
Hi Frank, as I understand you distinguish “ego” into two subcategories: the “ordinary ego” and the “transcended ego”. The “ordinary ego” is unawakened and false while the “transcended ego” is intersubjective in the aspect of crossing the border between you and I when communication to the point where we can acctually see each other as subjects, that is, understand each others conscious state of mind, and not considering each other as objects?
What if the ego and the authentic self denotes to the same thing?
Elly, I think the SuperEgo and the Authentic Self are more similar.
Freud perhaps doesn’t make clear that SuperEgo is something that is not inherent or at least needs to be developed. My idea is that the Authentic Self is evolved or attained by spiritual work.
Would you agree or not?
Hi Frank, let’s leave Freud outside of this discussion since it seems to be quite a lot of misunderstanding of what Freud said and didn’t say, and what he meant by it. For instance, what you call “superego” is actually your own intelligence. Regardless of Freud, what we wanna reach is a clear state of mind where engrams are excluded and we feel free, as in Authentic self or clear. How do I reach a clear state of mind, the authentic self?
Hi Elly, I think that even though the estimation of some of Freud’s ideas have been lowered, his formulation of id, ego and Super ego still has some currency.
I bring his thinking up because as I understand it, his Super ego according to Wikipedia is the conscience that attains to Perfection, more accurately stated than your equating Super ego with intelligence, as you have.
If you can accept this, it seems to indicate that the Authentic Self, being Enlightened, and the Super ego are more or less synomymous, IMO.
Hi Frank, you’ve either misunderstood what Freud refers to with ego, will and the intellect, or you’ve been provided false or diffuse information. I suggest you look for other complementary literature. To understand Freud, what he means with his “dream ” illustrations and metaphors one must first understand that our ego’s, synonymous with I myself, is placed in between the will, on the upper left side and intellect on the upper right side. The intellect and will are both superior to the I (ego) and they are in a constant battle over the I’s decisions. The intellect provides the ego, I, with information about the decision at hand. However, when situations where the information from the intellect is incoherent with the wishes from the will, the will “wins” the battle since the aggression within the will is stronger than the intellectual information.
Hi Elly,
I hope we’re not involved in a sematics food fight.
I understand Super-Ego to be consciousness, not intelligence. Where conciousness is rational and involved with mind process, I believe Super-Ego to be more about heart and intuition, more autonomous than volitioned.
I bring Freud into the discussion because ego and Super-
Ego still have wide currency but don’t plump for Freud more than that. Super-Ego for me is more about spirituality than about psychology unless the two are intertwined.
Hi Frank, you speak of universals as if they are the key to infinity. They are not. Universals are limited and the authentic self wouldn’t be composed by , or reached, if it contained elements that are limited. There are other elements, unlimited elements, much more superior than universal elements and they can be sensed. To be able to sense them you have to achieve a higher intellectual level.
re: “Though you seem to make light of the concept it seems to point to your not being up to speed as far as contemporary thought.
I consider with scientists that all Creation is a culture like bacterium developing in a giant Petri dish of our omni-atmosphere.”
If you consider science as bacterium, well than you are blind. Blind beyond stupidity. You have obviously not achieved any higher levels of knowledge than possibly high-school, if even that. If you had any intellect, you would have known that the concept of “authentic self” is a cheap COPY of another well known concept. LOL:))
Elly, re: Creation / germ development as a model
I believe you mis-state when you assert I think science is bacterium where I offer natural phenomenon of germs in a culture as perhaps how Creation may be conceived.
You may agree or disagree but I like to think that nature often offers the model for matrices of how evolution has evolved.
Hi Frank, why do you compare any kind of Creation with germs or bacterium. Are you metaphorically trying to say that they are spreading in an uncontrolled manner and that they are some form of an overload to the civilization?
Hi Elly, I find this language objectionable…we do not “lord” our knowledge over another, and use words like “stupid.” It is antithetical to the potentials of shared creation in the intersubjective, and precisely what we mean by speaking from the “Authentic” Self as opposed to speaking from the ego which takes the position of “knowing” and “rightness” at the cost of that said creation; a very dear price, indeed!
Take your time in your responses so we may all benefit, please!
Hi Nada, once again I find your comment laughable. There is such a thing as “free speech” whereby an argument can be disputed with an argument that has the same weight. “Quid pro quo”. Why do you complain, you do this to Aliya all the time! Maybe you have some “self” left in you after all, LOL;))
Elly, re: “If there would be such a thing as “authentic self” synonymous with “real self” or the “real you”, isn’t it a paradox that if you are to achieve this you have to give up yourself?”
Christians and other faiths have the term “Born Again” and maybe to chuck off ego to attain EGO, the transcended ego speaks to this.
Is this too way out to comprehend or is this possible to you?
I’d say that our inter-relationships are certainly important in spiritual understanding and practice but what is more inclusive is to personally adopt that determined commitment to attempt to foster a better world for all, in every thought and action.
When that underlies your way of behaving, there is nothing more to ask or expect of anyone, is there?
True Frank, yes we all want a better world but that idea isn’t domain- specific. Even atheists want a better world, the meaning and idea of “a better world” is however different between religions, politics, cultures and even individuals exc.Therefor the idea itself can’t be defined in one strict sense. Think of it this way, if there only could be one religion on earth which one would it be; christianity, islam, budism.. and who would decide which one?
Hi Elly, Would Universalist qualify as a universal religion? The way I see it any faith and belief that honors the Perennial Wisdom, the Golden Rule and attempts to better status quo unegoistically would get my endorsement.
As we see, more and more are turning away from organized religions, becoming atheists and agnostics. This does not mean that spiritual values can’t be retained, I would hope. It nd they ask the question “Is God necessary in order to be “good”?
I’m ooncerned that those who have disavowed religious beliefs may believe they can form their own moral codes and therefore may proceed to act irresponsibly. I would lament if this results in a whole bunch of these kinds of people.
Hi Frank, religion is not a necessary ground for moral values. Law-abiding citizens are most often considered to have high moral values no matter if they are or are not believers of any religion. And then, what religion contains good moral values and which one doesn’t? They all contain different values. Religion is something someone chooses to join because they want to be part of something, identify with something that they can’t find in open society. It’s just belief, it’s not reality, and therefor one shouldn’t take it as a law but rather as advice.
Hi Elly, re: “Even atheists want a better world, the meaning and idea of “a better world” is however different between religions, politics, cultures and even individuals”
I totally agree with the caveat that there are atheists who retain spiritual values and then those who have left religion behind in a huff and perhaps may devise their own moral codes and decide that they can do what the hell they want so fuck off, pardon their expression.
I’m concerned that a whole lot of atheists will maybe have rather lax moral compasses which would maybe result in even more horrible news headlines, not only rape, murder and violence but unleashed and worse corporate and political shenanigans than we already have.
I don’t think it’s necessary to embrace God and religions to be good but I’d say that it keeps a lot of misbehavior reined in.
I’m sorry, but what a mess of concepts! Self, spirit, ego, rational mind, authentic self, soul, etc. What a thicket! Where’s the forest for the trees, guys and gal? Go to the top of the thermodynamic chain rather than sifting sand like bottom feeders!
Let’s try it this way, what comes first, awareness of Oneness (I’m presuming that this is our goal), or the self-centered identification with the limited self and its story? Well, the later of course. But how do we get from the limited self to identifying with “This”, the All? By creating all kinds of false categories in which to get lost?
At the level of the Forest how can there be selves, egos, souls, rational minds and authentic selves and spirit, etc.? There is only the Life Force, call it God or Nature, but IT is running the show. And we are IT. And IT is One. We need to wrap our heads around the big picture before we can grow into our new shells…
Dear Caroline,
Do not transform God into an idea “to wrap our heads around”. God cannot be an idea and cannot be reduced to an object to be mentally determined and described, believed in or worshipped.
God cannot be objectified, the moment you try to objectify Him you have missed.
Hi Aliya, “God” in what religion?
Dear Elly,
Do you think God “”exists”" only in religion?! Is God so petty for you that he can only exist if well described, categorized, pasteurized and homogenized in some particular religious book?!
Hi Aliya, “God” can mean a lot of different things to different people and therefor I’m asking you, and Nada, what you refer to by “God” since there seems to be a difference between your views of “God”.
To my understanding most buddhist tribes,in general, do not believe in God. Hindus believe in numerous of Gods, amongst others, Ganesh, Shiva exc. Brahman is more an idea of the being, as DaSein ( M. Heidegger) than a “God”.
Yes, Elly, you are right. God is the most misused word in the whole of human history. Every one projects on God his/her own mind staff.
You have to find out yourself what God is for you.
At the most I can tell you what God is not – God is not a belief system, neither an organized religion nor a modern evolutionnary movement.
There is only one authentic religious search and that is to know your innermost being. It is the being of the whole universe. By entering your innermost temple you have entered the real temple. All other temples are false, man-manufactured; all other gods in those temples are false, they are man-manufactured.
Only one thing is not man-manufactured and that is your innermost dignity, your innermost grace.
The divine can find you only in one way, only in one way can it find you, and that is your inner flowering: as it wanted you to be. Unless you find your spontaneity, unless you find your element, you cannot be happy.
Hi Aliya, how do you know that this “inner flowering” is indeed just that. Or the “inner temple”, how can you separate between that and your imagination of it being that. Sometimes our minds play tricks on us, such as making us think of something in ways other than what they really are. It’s difficult to separate between imagination and reality sometimes and this is a prime example of that.
Hi again Caroline, re: “But how do we get from the limited self to identifying with “This”, the All? By creating all kinds of false categories in which to get lost?”
I wonder if you’ve yet read my post talking about the ordinary all-too-human ego (small e) and then the Transcended Ego (another term for you) (-:)
I don’t think it’s my idea and it goes with attaining the Authentic Self where the ego is transformed and transcends into a nobler Ego (big E)that is committed to the betterment or at least the maintainance of the world with all that inhabit it?
With that kind of higher consciousness, our life becomes dedicated to issues that go beyond the nitty gritty we all need to handle but our thoughts and actions are more focused on the larger aims mentioned.
Is this reasonable, doable?
It takes that commitment mentioned.
Frank,
I’m going to have to agree with Aliya on this one–the term Ego doesn’t really describe the territory that lies on the other side of the self’s illusionary boundary (due credit to Nada for his phrase “illusion of boundary” in his post to you, above.) I just speak from my own personal experience. I broke through when things escalated to such a point that what I cared about became more important to me than my ego. It was a feeling thing that was mostly responding to the brutish domination of other people and animals, to even include the unintelligent pruning of trees–after all, trees have survival needs too. I became passionate and thus ended up involving myself in becoming a spokesperson for those that couldn’t speak for themselves.
I realize that it is only because I identify with the trees, animals and people that I care. But it’s not because they are underdogs (versus top-dogs.) It’s because they are vulnerable. All Life is vulnerable, even the top-dog is just an underdog covered up in Ego.
In any case, whatever Life is about, it’s not about me, or any single person, it’s about the vitality of the Whole.
Hi Caroline and Frank, I thought I’d cluster my comment to your conversation. It’s good to have generalizing terms that help others understand our personal experience which will always be unique to us AND up to us to translate in the best way to create bridges to a deeper integrated community. I can see within both of your translations the expression of the SUBTLE INTERTWININGS of the personal with the trans-personal, meaning; there are no hard and fast lines draw between them – wouldn’t you agree? that Spiritual effort is above all an effort to marry/unite the personal,unique self with the transpersonal Self,but it’s the personal self(Ego)that is transended and transformed with expansion into the inter-dimensionality of Reality.Ego IS Soul IS Self;3 in 1, but true stages of development, with Self being One with Ultimate Reality, the Self without time. If we take “Ego” to mean a necessary self-organizing principle(otherwise we are insane or schizoid)and”Soul” to mean psychic/subtle principle yearning to be One with God, we find those subtle intertwinings of Ego and Soul with no clear demarcation line, because they are both principles of the personal self,with Soul being the true stage of disidentification with an *exclusive* material identity.Ego is gathered up into the Soul and subtle identity gradually takes it’s place. *Genuine* transformation is a long,messy and often painful undertaking. The breaking down of egoic contractions is a process of continually surrendering the need for separative existence, and this is where Frank’s use of (big)Ego is valid because the crossing over point is one where we can say we care about a cause(Caroline)or the care of the world(Frank)that is felt very personally, yet simultaneously feels solidly trans-personal.
Thx to u both!(;}
Hi Caroline,
Your last statement seems to affirm your Transcended Ego that would incorporate a developed spirituality.
If your passion is ego-driven, that transcended process is still incomplete. When you have attained an attitude of peaceful work, you will be operating more spiritually, IMO.
I hope I’m not being a Grinch in saying I lament what I observe as the way many (most?) Americans consider Thanksgiving as an entitlement to overindulge, forswearing and neglecting any passing thought of giving thanks for our blessings. Especially most of us Americans, overfed and with so much to be thankful for.
Best wishes for a great happy and hopefully delicious Thanksgiving holiday (holy day) to all!
Nada, I just now read your post to Aliya about the Hero. It’s funny because I just wrote Frank yesterday about my personal experience with transcending the ego. Yes, the Hero does describe it! Thank you!
I deal with a number of supervisors at work that are automatons, thinking that power over others is their mandate. They take their cue from our patriarchal past without thinking through the ramifications; i.e. lack of character and self-respect. Because their selves never meet life honestly they are forced to form a clique with other like-minded cowards.
But here’s my theory, which is how Nature conducts change through time. By the way, several posters on this site seem to think that the “human” is the arbiter of events. That blind spot is due to the androcentric perspective that separates “human” from the rest of Nature. If one thinks about it, there is only Nature and most of what goes on is due to its biological and subconscious dictates. The Hero is not exempt.
So, anyway, back to theory. During the last several millennia, human life centered around agriculture and the political, economic, religious structure that rose out of it. This was a hierarchal, top-down system of control. It dealt with simple exteriors. Everything had to channel through the gate-guards for permission; people were bound, like the atoms fixed in a lattice of ice. The Hero was suppressed.
What one sees across America today is that those in leadership positions are mysteriously abandoning their role and delegating responsibility downwards. This shows me that they were only gate guards–not truly integrated problem solvers. Fact is, current leadership has no understanding of the whole, how things connect. Anyway, the external shell is coming off to reveal the inner heart.
“I deal with a number of supervisors at work that are automatons, thinking that power over others is their mandate… Because their selves never meet life honestly they are forced to form a clique with other like-minded cowards” – so very well said, dear Caroline!
But why is humanity so much hankering after power and money? The simple reason for that hankering is that human beings feel empty inside, unfulfilled and miserable. They forgot their inner most core reality, their essence of being, where love and bliss abide. Because of this disconnectedness with their inner center people forgot how to love, they neglected the sacred law of all messengers and prophets – the Law of Love.
Human beings forgot the language of their heart and got too much centered in their mind and its delusions and fears. A person who is centered only in his easily prompt to conditioning and programming mind and forgot the inner truth of the heart, is as a toy in the skillful hands of manipulators and deceivers of all sorts, of do-gooders, politicians and hypocrite institutional and religious clerks. Then no wonder such injustice and crime rule the world.
Even if brave and authentic human beings like Julian Assange (WikiLeaks founder) start speaking the truth openly, people will prefer to continue dreaming and snoring and will be mad on every one who dares to make attempts to awaken them. There have been many Julian Assanges in the past and even more will be in the future, but still people are attached and used to their misery, to their blindness and self delusion. And the evidence for this are those same politicians and governments, huge institutions and dead organizational structures, elected and supported by those same dreaming people, who want to be deluded and misguided, because this gives them some more possibility to continue dreaming, to feel protected. Looking for leaders gives people the possibility to throw their own responsibility on somebody else’s shoulders. People are afraid of freedom, even though they claim the reverse. To be free and authentic scares them to death, because then they will have to take over all the responsibility for their life, to live consciously in each and every single moment. They will no more be able to hide behind a crowd, a society, a government, an organized religion. They will have to stand alone and to oppose every injustice and crime because they will know that we are the One.
To me further evolution is possible only with individual responsibility. You alone are responsible! This responsibility is a great blessing in disguise. With this individual responsibility comes the struggle that ultimately leads towards individual flowering and choiceless awareness.
Aliya,
I loved reading that last post of yours. Individual responsibility is truly the cutting edge of evolution–no doubt about it. But I take the naturalist view; we’ve bred a world of followers because Nature selected for it. All polar relationship are, in effect, operative batteries and the polar relationship between leaders and followers never breaks that dynamic rule. Such a configuration fueled the entire socio, religio, economic and political system of the age of agriculture that formed the early societies, leading us to today.
However, the authoritarian leaders and followers of the last few thousand years were simply a FORM that Life took to best manage the emerging energies of the times. This FORM contained, and was able to carry, tremendous energy. But, for some time now, that energy has been greatly dissipating due to irrelevancy. Of course, the individuals emerging now, are also FORM. But this new form is carrying energy that is highly concentrated, having long been locked up, repressed, suppressed and oppressed. This is the energy of the inner person. However, the energy is not limited to humans, but rather this newfound freedom of expression is opening up to the underdog of all stripes.
An interesting polarity of these times involves the awakening of the individual, on the one hand–while on the other, the awareness that this is a global, cultural, event.
Hi Aliya, re: “To me further evolution is possible only with individual responsibility”
Well yes, but there you go making your usual “only way”
assertions.
I submit and Integral Evolution which is the teaching of EnlightnementNext includes the force and wisdom of collectiveness which humanity as a whole is ingrained with. That so many people if not the mass of humanity are too self-involved and pre-empted with family and job concerns to address evolution thinking but in your way you are saying that we all must be involved in raising consciousness to see and realize that humanity must address some serious challenges if we are to create a world we will find sustainable and agreeable to inhabit.
I’ve been thinking that I’m perhaps too critical of your views and that you understand what it will take to realize that better world. I guess I react to your seeming absolutist way of communicating your thinking and views. I believe you to be a sincere and consciously evolved being.
Namaste, Aloha!
Hi Caroline, Due to the undeniable fact that to be a conscious,self-aware entity,aka “human being”, necessarily comes with an exceptional amount of complexity,is to say that “Nature”, too,is an unavoidable part of that complexity.Even the most enlightened person needs to eat,shit and sleep,have shelter,and depending on how that person chooses to live,some form of income.Though it is the vehicle of consciousness,the body is the vulnerable,impermanent form(whether tree,animal or human).But higher levels of consciousness transcend and include the body,this is why we can forget our own safety when we rush into the fire to save another; why I would sacrifice myself to save my child or lover,or defend any put-upon person, etc. And this is why The Hero is so important, because it can act upon the world,bypassing its own self-preservation.The Hero steps beyond the status-quo and challenges the precepts of useless cultural norms(patriarchy,prejudice,injustice)and creates newly enlivened forms in the process, often at great personal sacrifice.But even the Hero has a shadow, and this is where things can go terribly wrong within the individual psyche.With historical hindsight,it’s certainly easy to see that patriarchal culture was the Hero archetype turned into the dominator hierarchy that conquered,raped and pillaged,subduing even the Hero within the female psyche. Women have been fighting for their right to the Hero ever since, and finally a new embrace and freedom has established itself in consciousness and culture. It’s up to supra-aware women to channel it rightly, back into the intersubjective to co-create those new forms that unerringly stand in defence of the vulnerable and the imposed upon and to forge new levels of greater embrace for all to benefit from. See quote below:
Part 2:Caroline, Ego, Soul and Self are all developmental stages of the same presiding principle; Ego is the self-organizing principle in early development that often stays wrongly identified with as the true reality, Soul as psychic/subtle stage unfolds with transcendence of Ego, and again, these two are subtly intertwined because they are in essence not-two, but the same personal principles of being. Ego identifies with the gross body/mind, Soul identifies with subtle forms/energies. Self presides as Ultimate Reality. When ego and Soul are finally undone,Zen calls this the Great Death, Self is realized as the One with the All. So the Ego is the Hero, Soul is the Hero and;
Ramana Maharishi…
“He who by discernment has effaced all objectivity is one established in the Reality of Awareness. He is the Fire of Awareness(Agni) and the wielder of vajra(Indra). He is the Hero who has done away with death, canceling time itself.”
LOL (;}
Hi Caroline, re: Leaders, leadership styles
I submit that good leaders leads with strong principles that are communicated clearly to those who serve them. This results in their all being on the same page, with talking back when necessary, but the leader is there to administer his team and see they are achieving the results planned.
To be able to formulate a plan to the team’s satisfaction and then to implement that plan are two parts of leaders’ job.
I am still optimistic of President Obama’s being able to steer us to better times based on his formidable mind and values if he is given the cooperation and comprehension of his objectives. I believe we are fortunate in having such a person with the commitment he has to human rights and hope to be proven correct in my assessment.
His legacy will show if I’m mistaken or not.
“The more restrictions there are, the poorer are the people.
The more pointed the people’s weapons,
the more disorder there is in the country.
The more ingenious and clever the people,
the more strange the contrivances that appear.
The more laws and edicts that are posted,
the more thieves and robbers that arise”
When the great Tao is forgotten,
benevolence and moral codes arise.
When shrewdness and cleverness appear,
great hypocrisy follows.
When there is no harmony in the family,
filial manners are developed
When the country is in disorder,
ministers appear as loyal servants” – Lao Tsu
I’ve submitted numerous times the concept( not mine but propounded by other thinkers much more worthy and qualified than I) that the ego becomes morphed into the Ego/SuperEgo/Authentic Self when one comes to acknowledge the Being Within that can embrace the commitment to unegoistically attempt the effort to better existence and a better world and universe for all.
Many may be still mired in a limited concept and accept that humanity is stuck in egoistic selfcenteredness and cannot envision a relinquishing of that limited view and not be able to conceive of Ego/SuperEgo/Authentic Self.
Many of the comments seem to attest to this limited adherance to the limited ego. Without acknowledging the transcendant EGO, it seems it would be difficult to have it become a consciousness held personally for those who continue in their limited consciousness.
Hi Elly, In response to your comment above on “frameworks”;When an individual has developed their awareness to the degree that they have realized themselves as the Causal Ground and the Evolution of Forms(Nonduality),they’ve transcended all things and are now the All of everything arising as Such.An Enlightened Nondual person is *obligated* to communicate,for the sake of others,what they have realized,so,Yes,it is a necessity,because semantical communication requires it, to create a “framework” for that specific communication.My framework of choice is Integral – Evolutionary Spirituality, which is not a “religion.” I told you above,I’m a secular person and my impulse to life has been,and continues to be,searching out the “Universalities”,meaning,*agreed upon presiding principles* that the Mystics and Sages of all times have directly experienced and realized(called the Perrenial Philosophy).They may all have different “words and semantical frameworks”,but once a person has expanded their awareness to see into the words,see the relationship between the frameworks, they’ve hit upon a *presiding principle* that transcends even that specific framework. Understand? “Spontaneous expression”,as Andrew Cohen has said,is the very nature of the liberated person.I’m limited to the English language,so I necessarily think and communicate within it’s precepts,this is a contextual framework,the very conditioning of my brain.But,Presiding Principles of Spirit are not words,and even though my spiritual experiences have on occasion been transmitted to me by words(locution),it is up to the person, always!,to translate that experience as best they can for their own integration and subsequently to share that experience with others.This is why contemplation is so integral to stages of…
Elly,Part2,…development.Contemplation is a necessity to help a person re-align their framework to match and uphold their newly realized transformation.This is why Spirituality IS psychology, because the very pychological structures within the person are being transformed by spiritual experience.
I can see that you have a need to keep terms neatly in their place, catagorized and compartmentalized, while I do not.”God,Brahman,Tao,etc.” are words!,and words only! applied to Presiding Principles that exist as Absolute Truths. There is nothing like “Brahman” “out there” waiting for you to stumble upon it.The energetic energies of psyche,Soul(Spirit)don’t come with labels attached; it is we humans who possess this capacity for “meaning and purpose” and communication is a necessary, and paradoxical, part of sharing experience in relationship that requires us to “name” those experiences that are essentially “wordless.” Call the “Universalities” of which I speak “orienting generalizations.” As an Integralist, I choose to unite applicable information to help reduce/re-unite the fragmentation that has happened between the individual,collective global culture,science,religion/spirituality, because I’ve realized the importance and imperative of an Integral Consciousness to keep humans alive and healthy on this beautiful planet, and so have many,many others. I suggest you look into Ken Wilber’s “Integral Theory” if you truly care about the same. (There are numerous books and a website.)
I hope, once again, that I have clarified my position.
LOL (;}
Hi Nada, re: “development.Contemplation is a necessity to help a person re-align their framework to match and uphold their newly realized transformation”
You have yet not explained what it is you refer to as “framework”. As I mentioned earlier, Integral spirituality, which you say that you believe in, is founded on LFG. In LFG, framework, frame, means the mental image of an entity associated with a given term. Once again, I advice you to look this up. http://www.pro-nlp.com What you are referring to with this;
“Contemplation is a necessity to help a person re-align their framework to match and uphold their newly realized transformation”
and what I don’t think you understand is that a change in frame association only results in a respons of the participant as a fixed stimuli respons, not natural speech respons. With other words, a disconnection in frame association only results in hypnosis. This has been scientifically proven by numerous of experiments done on NLP. There are no existing scientific evidence or support for these kind of claims that LFG and Integral spiritiuality does.
I’m glad to see that we’ve reached mutual ground on the “God” matter, let’s use Brahman so it’s more “neatly in place”.
Further, what did you think of my Advaita to EE translation above, particularly “Onenism” and “Oneness”? is it monism?
Sorry Elly, but I didn’t know if you were still visiting the site!
Do you know what Georgia O’Keeffe said when her very up-close flower paintings were proclaimed “sexual?”
She said, “That’s their problem!”
Meaning, your association is not mine! I just happen to like the word “framework!”
Would it help you to understand my use of “framework” if I defined it as a “hierarchy of context and structure?” AKA:Hierarchy or Holarchy of Being;Body,Mind,Soul,Spirit
I’ll use a metaphor;
Imagine consciousness is a building, say, with seven floors(example only) which unfold in an ascending developmental hierarchy or increasing wholeness. The floor you are on is the coinciding “place” of your identifications. This floor could be called the “framework” or “context and structure” of your identifications. Each floor represents a “level” of awareness. So with exclusive Body/Mind/Ego identification, you are perhaps on the third floor, and as long as you stay identified in this way, the other floors stay unknown and unidentified with. It’s only with differentiation and transcendence that a vertical shift of “framework” or “context and structure” happens. If you are just re-translating your current identification, you are moving horizontally on the same floor,not transforming to the next “level.” Understand?
That’s what I MEAN with the use of the word “framework”..it is just shorter than “hierarchy of context and structure.”
Elly, are you perhaps a psychology student?
P.S.Elly, I’m not an “Advaitist” nor do I have any “belief systems.” I do not “believe” in Integral Spirituality: I have *realized* the Hierarchy of Being as my own being, which is not an “intellectual realization” or “belief system.” I’ve developed through the stable stages of the hierarchy, and have become them. No “belief” is left in me.
How about you? What do you believe in?
pps…I looked at the NLP Site, but couldn’t access the “Integral Spirituality” heading. At any rate, the Integral Spirituality I’m talking about is directly associated with Ken Wilber; whoever else is applying his theory, and there are quite many, doesn’t mean I’m automatically associated with those individuals. You should check-out,specifically,any of Wilber’s Integral Theory writings…I suggest as a primer “A Brief History of Everything” Enjoy!
Hi Nada, so you’ve missed me already:)) You are once again acting Scn, wouldn’t you agree? First you posted a part of Sri Aurobindo from “The Life Divine” and now you say; “Meaning, your association is not mine!” and that you are NOT an Advaitaist. No controversy there, right:)) Are you the EE version of Tommy Davis?
I asked you if the terms I listed where synonymous in your use of those terms. You had a perfect opportunity to address those questions. Is this question to hard for you to answer:
Is Oneness, or Onenism, the same as monism?
Re;”Imagine consciousness is a building, say, with seven floors(example only) which unfold in an ascending developmental hierarchy or increasing wholeness. The floor you are on is the coinciding “place” of your identifications. This floor could be called the “framework” or “context and structure” of your identifications. Each floor represents a “level” of awareness”
Haha, is this the EE translation of the OT levels? and I’m already on level 3, wow, didn’t know that. Scn has 8 floors, why do you only have 7?
in addition to my comments below, Nada, I wanna add that the following questions; what does each floor/ framework consist of and how does one move up?
No, I’m not a psychology student.
Hi Nada, re: :Do you know what Georgia O’Keeffe said when her very up-close flower paintings were proclaimed “sexual?”
I wonder if she meant it was a problem for the flowers or for people who perceived them that way?
I wonder why it would be a problem in any case?
(-;
Re: “Spontaneous expression”, as Andrew Cohen has said,is the very nature of the liberated person”
I wonder if his saying that is taken out of context but I would say that “considered expression” is as important as being spontaneous. IF that spontaneity is something that comes from an ingrained spiritual mindset, the expressions whether action or speech would be spontaneous in that case.
As Buddhists are enjoined: First comes right thought, then comes right action–including speech I would say.
Hi again, Frank! Thanks for your comment!
I decided to use A.C.’s “spontaneous expression” because it applied to my point about the fact that even a “liberated” person is called upon to use linguistic devices to express the “wordless” or trans-verbal stages of development, which also means they are *limited* within their specific language use.But that is actually saying quite a lot!In “Science,Order,and Creativity,” the physicists David Bohm w/F. David Peat,proclaim that language possesses an “infinite order,because its potential for *meaning* is unlimited and cannot be determined by any finite set of differences.On the other hand,it also contains many different suborders of lower degree-the various rules of syntax and semantics for example.”
So my point is that even “spontaneous expression” has to be channeled thru linguistic capabilities and symantical rules-this is an unavoidable contextual “framework.” We HAVE to create MEANING for the listener within a “framework”(Elly opposed my use of that word because of her association).
And,as Bohm and Peat point out,gaps in communication/meaning can be bridged with “metaphor.” Scientists use metaphorical device, as do most,if not all, enlightened people, because it “points to” the meaning without literalizing the meaning.Genuine spiritual experiences shouldn’t be literalized! So again, liberated people don’t suffer limitation,and therefore have “spontaneous expression” at their disposal,but ultimately have a *responsibility* to “right speech”,as you so correctly point out.”Right speech” actually unfolds as a developmental “task” on the Path, as well as a “moral imperative.” These two coincide as complimentary *movements* within the psyche of the individual with a “transcended ego.”
I always welcome your comments!(;}
Hi Nada,
I find this comment laughable:
“The “Authentic”,aka,”True,Real,One,etc.,” Self is “inherent.” It HAS to be,since there is only ONE SELF, it is inherent for all, because it is the ALL”
Initially you declared that “authentic self” is a mutual ground wherein separate egos are conjoined and by that they no longer consider each other as objects but can see each others subjects. Now out of nowhere you claim that the “true self”, which I asked you about in one of the first comments I wrote, is synonymous with “real you” which you’ve denied as respons to my comment, and further you now claim that this is inhereted. So I must ask; how is subjective experience inherreted? How can one be born with experiences that they have not yet experienced? Is this assumption based on anything or is it just yours or A.C’s assumptions?
Hi Elly, Happy New Year!I’m glad I can provide you with “laughable” entertainment! just to be sure you understand, I was picking up on Frank’s use of the word “inherent.”
Let’s please clarify…the word I used was “inherent”,as did he, which is not the same as your use;”"inherreted” which isn’t even a word, but I’m guessing you meant “inherited.”
Inherent>adj. Existing as an essential constituent or characteristic;intrinsic.
Inherited>verb. 1.To receive by legal succession or will. 2.biol. To receive from one’s parents by genetic transmission.
Big difference between the two meanings, wouldn’t you say?
The Self(whether you put One,True,Higher,or Authentic in front of it) is inherent,intrinsic because it is the same for all.The Self is not born, and therefore, never dies, never enters the stream of space/time;it is *prior to* manifestation, eternal.It can’t be avoided or “attained”;you can’t attain or avoid that which you already are.The Self is bare attention,before any thought or emotion or defensive contraction or identification or self-imposed limitation,etc…This Self can be the presence in the moment with which communication “happens,” AND thru the arduous stages of development,the Self is “Realized”in an on-going,”stable,” perpetual condition known as the “True Nature,” or Enlightenment.The Self is “Nondual” because it is prior to any subject/object duality, therefore,”Oneness” is a term used equal to Nonduality, but I’ve never heard the word “monism,” so I can’t respond on that point.”Monad” perhaps is what you mean,and yes, that has meant “Oneness” or “The One.”(and I never did bring “moksha” or “Atman” to the conversation,you did,so I won’t respond on that point, either.)
As the rest of your comment is based on a mis-use of “inherent”…cont…
(Elly,cont.)and essentially misconstrued the initial use,I can’t comment on the rest of your questions.
But, I will add that I have directly experienced(not a belief system) my consciousness principle, or soul, as a *continuation,* the carrier of “karmic propensities,” and therefore, the principle of evolution/development in any single lifetime and the agent of Spirit’s unfolding *in time* as an individual person; we are always Spirit realizing itself as Spirit. Any other “belief” is pure illusion.
In other words, the Soul returns(manifests), remembers, and always *inherently* desires return to the Source or Ground, which is Spirit, and,depending on the level of its evolution, with every lifetime, hopefully comes closer to its dissolution into the Pure Spirit or Self. You can read about this in “The Tibetan Book of the Dead.”
And since you mentioned the “triangle” which is symbolic in many traditions of the Trinity, there is one time when 1+1=3…and that’s in Union. You and I have the potential of “making Three” when we transcend our separate selves in relationship. Perhaps you’ve heard of the writing “I and Thou” by the Jewish Mystic Martin Buber. Check it out!
Ahimsa (;}
Hi Nada, happy new year.
Re:”And since you mentioned the “triangle” which is symbolic in many traditions of the Trinity, there is one time when 1+1=3…and that’s in Union. You and I have the potential of “making Three” when we transcend our separate selves in relationship. Perhaps you’ve heard of the writing “I and Thou” by the Jewish Mystic Martin Buber. Check it out!”
You’ve misunderstood my point. The frame explanation has to do with perception.
“…1+1=3…and that’s in Union.”
In maths 1+1 always equals 2. My advice is that you don’t confuse beliefs with math cause if that you will be an easy target for robbery:))
I understood that perfectly, Elly. I was just adding a bit of flava’ to the conversation…
Also, when Woman plus Man procreate, that is
1 + 1 = 3!
Hi Nada,
re: “Inherent>adj. Existing as an essential constituent or characteristic;intrinsic.
Inherited>verb. 1.To receive by legal succession or will. 2.biol. To receive from one’s parents by genetic transmission.”
And what exactly are do you believe I’ve misunderstood with this term based on these definitions except from misspelling it?
I once again find this reference of yours entertaining, the definitions of yours above 1) and 2) in your linking to Authentic Self says that you’ve either
a) inherited the Authentic Self legally by legacy from someone else or
b) you’ve inherited Authentic Self biologically trough DNA from your parents
Are these definitions really in favor of the point you are trying to make?
Elly, you used “inherited” again in both your a/b choices, so I can’t respond until you make the distinction between “inherent” and “inherited.”
Except to say, the “Self” is inherent, not “inherited.”
LOL
Hi Nada,
I’m glad you’ve made that clarification as Authentic Self is something that is inherent in everyone but
is not always autonomically develop except through a development of higher consciousness and understanding that enables that Self to be manifested. IMO.
It’s commonly thought that attaining the Authentic Self and to be Spiritually Awakened is a dramatic whammo lightning flash whereas it can also be subtle and even not noticed except for the understanding that is requisite. What distinguishes that Self and Awakening is the behavior and commitment to the lifelong mindset (and heartset)to attempting the betterment of life on earth for all its inhabitants, the non-sentient and non-human as well as all humankind.
I believe this to be true, to my understanding.
Hi Nada, a framework, in both philosophy and linguistics, refers to a particular frame associated with a term. Here is an example: think of the difference between a regular triangle and the hypotenuse, both are triangles. In the latter,the hypotenuse: the right angle in that triangle is twice the length of the other two sides, according to Pythagoras, as opposed to a regular triangle where all sides are equally long. Although a triangle, the visual perception of the hypotenuse is other than of a regular triangle. That is, the frame; visual perception associated with the term “hypotenuse” is other than the visual perception of a regular triangle. This can also be expressed as: the term “hypotenuse” is associated with a frame that is another frame than the frame associated with a regular triangle. There is no reason to suppose that these terms are related other than that they both refer to triangles. The terms are not the same, that is, they are not synonymous since they don’t refer to the same thing.
Universals are not the same as frames. Universals are axioms, they are given truths that are so ” right in themselves” that they need no empirical evidence, only cognition (thinking). An example of an axiom is 1+1 =2 since there is no circumstance wherein 1+1 can equal other than 2. They can also be described as ” All things that are X, and only iff (iff stands for if and only if) they are X, are X under all possible circumstances.
To be continued…
Elly, The Buddha said to Subhuti, “In a place where there is something that can be distinguished by signs, in that place there is deception. If you can see the signless nature of signs, then you cn see the Tathagata.”
This is the prana-paramita; our usual way of perceiving is according to the principle identity: “A is A” and “A is not B.” When we perceive things, we generally use the sword of conceptualization to cut reality into pieces, saying “This piece is A, and A cannot be B,C, or D.” But when A is looked at in light of dependent co-arising, we see that A is comprised of B,C,D, and everything else in the universe. “A” can never exist by itself alone. When we look deeply into A, we see B,C,D, and so on. Once we understand that A is not just A, we understand the true nature of A and are qualified to say “A is A,” and “A is not A.” But until then, the A we see is just an illusion of the true A. Thich Nhat Hanh
No independent arising is the direct apprehension of the Real, and rigidness of thought will keep you from the direct apprehension of the Real. One must be willing to not-know, Elly, to directly apprehend the One True Reality.
Ahimsa
Re: The rather convoluted read of Buddhist thought you posted:
Can it be boiled down to say that a holistic consideration of situations and issues is what’s called for, not jumping to first conclusions, but condering things more comprehensively? This is not to say it should be so considered that inaction results, though that may happen when the issue is so complicated as they often are.
For those who see things holistically, matters are never simply black and white, there are usually if not always shaded and with layers of possibilities. The more highly conscious a person is, the more holistically things can be perceived and understood with concomitant reaction rather than shooting from the hip, if you will.
??
Hi Frank!
Elly, bless her heart, has shown herself to be exceptionally rigid to the cross-referencing perspective I take. So if you meant I was convoluting the passage from the “Diamond Sutra,” translated by Thich Nhat Hanh, I’ll explain that it was to make the point to her about her ridgidness. The Dharmakaya,or Causal Ground, can’t be explained or known by any terms that arise in the mind, and the “Diamond Sutra” is also called “The Diamond That Cuts Through Illusion” for a reason…illusion can’t survive while contemplating it’s language like “the signless nature of signs” and “a rose is not a rose, so is therefore a rose.”
Your point on holistic perception and embrace is well taken, Frank, but doesn’t apply to the point made by the Diamond Sutra about the Dharmakaya. The Dharmakaya is the suchness or condition of anything that can be “holistic,” but is also not holistic, since it is not conditioned by holistic ideas; The Dharmakaya is unconditioned and is the rising of the condition of holism or wholism. Understand?
Elly has a need to pin things down. I’m trying to get her to throw the pins away!
Take Care!
Hi Frank,I was reading some of the dialog between you and Elly above and want to add a bit to it…
The “Authentic”,aka,”True,Real,One,etc.,” Self is “inherent.” It HAS to be,since there is only ONE SELF, it is inherent for all, because it is the ALL. But,as you also said, the *stable stage* in which this is realized is a process of development. This is a paradox that is not in contradiction if one maintains a position that we simultaneously *become in time* that which we *already are* because the Self is the Ground of our Awareness at *all times*, since the Self is *outside of time*(The Ground of All Being).One can get glimpses of this in meditative states,revealing their Witnessing awareness which is the Soul and an aspect of the Self.(The Soul is time bound, the Self is not).Matter,Body, Mind,Soul and Self(Spirit)ARE INHERENT,because they are deep structures of all peoples at all times…that is the base truth of the Perennial Philosophy.
While I agree with your use of “transcended ego”,I’m not in agreement with the use of Freud’s “SuperEgo” as meaning “Authentic Self”. Brilliant as Freud was, he was a “reductionist”, collapsing the true,higher transcendent and mystical stages into the pre-developmental stages, claiming that all development is a “wish” to return/recapture the undifferntiated infantile state. That is a huge error, and what Ken Wilber calls the Pre-Trans Fallacy. Trans-personal stages of development can only happen *after* ego development and individuation;the infant knows only its materiality and identification with the mother.So I gently? suggest that you contemplate a potential reconfiguration of your idea/translation of using SuperEgo as a term synonymous w/Authentic Self.
Please respond! with your thoughts on this,
Thanks,Happy Holidays!
Hi Nada, about Freud. Freud spoke of three things; the will, the ego (I) and the intelligence. He pointed out clearly that the will always “defeats” the intelligence in the end since human aggression and sexuality is stronger and superior over the intellect. Although the intellect warns the ego, I, the Will always defeats the intellect. This has nothing to do with a “superego” or transcendence or authentic self. According to Freud there wouldn’t exist such a phenomenon as authentic self since the human “Will” would prevent it to appear at all. Hence, I don’t get why you keep referring to Freud since he is obviously not a favorable reference to your beliefs !
Nada, the definition of Super ego is taken from Wikipedia among a whole essay on the subject. I assume the definition I cite is based on Freud’s work.
Hi Frank, if the author uses super ego as synonymous to intellect, than yes. Can you state the reference to the article?
Hi Nada, what do you scientifically base this statement about infants on:
“(Trans-personal stages of development can only happen *after* ego development and individuation;)
the infant knows only its materiality and identification with the mother.”
Are you denying infants capabilities of detecting emotions, speech recognition and speech development?
Elly, There was a discernment I was making about Freud. That, although he did much for the advancement of psychology, his theory was flawed as far as the authentic, mystical and trans-personal stages were concerned, because he collapsed the development available after stable and healthy ego development, the trans-personal stages, into infantile wish fulfillment; that those stages after ego development are a wish to “return” to the supposed “heaven” of the infant state. Many researches have made this distinction concerning Freud. He never did come to include an integration of Eastern thought, like Jung. But even Jung’s “archetypes of the collective unconscious” was flawed, because there are Diety archetypes, more subtle forms than the archetypes that are collective patterns.
So, while both of them were brilliant contributors to Western psychology, they failed to create truly integrative theories that involved development into the deeper, wider, higher Reality.
LOL
Further, Nada, do you mean that an infant can’t identify with its father and other people in it’s environment?
No, Elly, I didn’t mean that.
Re: Superego/Freud
I use the term lifted from Wikipedia, FWIW, since I believe it has wide currency. I believe it’s synoymous with Authentic Self, Transcended Ego, Satori, Nirvana and boddhisattvahood.
So you can take your pick for whatever term you prefer, to me they’re all to designate the state of Non-Ego.
Nada, I go by the Wikipedia entry that states that Super ego aims at perfection, which may be simplifying it overly but is how I intend it to mean here.
In that way I would say the Transcended Ego, the Authentic Self and Super Ego are pretty similar in their meanings.
Nada,
I still think that the larger picture gets missed when the language revolves around terms such as self, soul, spirit, etc., because the focus is so very androcentric. It is the androcentric bias that is *the* blinder to the larger picture. I see so many ideas on this site that just circle and eddie, getting nowhere because they can’t get out of a self, of whatever stripe. Whether the discussion is about the limited ego or about the transcendent self, it’s still about self!
Sure enough, the ego is a limited structure and we should discuss its limitations, but there’s no limitation outside of it. There’s either a shell or there’s not a shell. Certainly you can call that which exists outside the shell as “spirit”, “self”, “subtle body”, “authentic”, but how useful is it? We simply do not know what it is.
Matter, itself, is an expression of the ground of being, as there is nothing that is not. And Life is simply a developmental stage that’s inherent in Matter; ditto the advent of Mind. All development is inherent in the ground of being. I would like us to stop the navel gazing and turn more towards contemplating this ALL that incorporates and adheres in EVERYTHING.
Mahalo!
As I’ve been propounding the transformed Transcended Ego that accompanies Spritual Awakening, I wonder if you consider or acknowledge that when you state that:
“Sure enough, the ego is a limited structure and we should discuss its limitations, but there’s no limitation outside of it. There’s either a shell or there’s not a shell.”
Would you be in agreement that the Transcended Ego is less if not limited or not?
Hi again Caroline. I reword my above question to you that you haven’t yet responded to. Can I assume you acknowledge the existence of the more altruistic Transcended Ego that supplants the self-serving ego?
If so, can a Transcended Ego be limited or can it see unegoistic possibilities to be manifested in unlimited ways, uninhibited when it sees it can accomplish work of bettering or at least maintaining the status quo?
Happy 2011!
Frank,
When I said that there’s a shell, i.e., ego, or not a shell, i.e., transcended ego, I meant that the limited ego that can only see its own being as important is a shell; when that is broken through, we are free to relate to everything as though it were ourselves because we realize that it is (first in theory and ever more so in experience.) Of course this is a growing process, whereas the ego permitted no such growth.
The various stages of ego, such as ego-centric, ethno-centric and world-centric are valid perspectives but some people never do go through the ethno-centric phase.
We never get rid of our ego and our immediate concerns for our personal well-being–wouldn’t be much sense in that, would there? But we can view our needs from a wider perspective of world-centeredness.
Mahalo!
Frank,
Part 2. We need to keep sight of reality–that should be our touchstone. The Advaitist dream of losing one’s self in the Now or in Oneness is not reality. We hear someone, like Aliya, railing about people not living in the Now but her perspective is unbalanced; because people don’t live in the Now, they should *only* be living in the Now? Where’s the logic in that? Living in the Now, in itself, isn’t a real experience–that’s why Aliya can never describe it, except in stock, stereotypic ways. And when asked, she always gets defensive and says that “if you don’t know, then I’m certainly not going to be able to help you!” Brother!
Her thinking (and thinking it is, regardless of all her protestations to the contrary), is completely dualistic. There is no Now separate from the past and the future. The reason I bring this up is because people lose sight of reality because they want to believe in an airy-fairy world that makes them feel comfortable. All this stuff about the so-called spiritual really just makes me gag. It’s spiritual just being alive! Even if that means having to deal with a lot of problems (problems are spiritual too.) But let’s focus on dealing with them in a way that helps everyone. No more navel gazing!
OK, this site is about evolution of spirit. But let it not disconnect spirit with everything that exists–if the “know nothing” Christian is an empty bag, and ditto the “know nothing” Advaitist, then lord have mercy if we also have “know nothing” Evolutionarys! I think the first order of business is to understand WHAT we ARE. No one knows what this human is, or appears to want to inquire into what we are. Brother!
Hi Caroline, re: “We never get rid of our ego and our immediate concerns for our personal well-being–wouldn’t be much sense in that, would there? But we can view our needs from a wider perspective of world-centeredness.”
I’m still not satisfied with your response to whether you believe the Transcendent Ego is a human possibility that leaves behind the all-too-human clinging to the self-centric ego though your second sentence expresses the possibility of a shift from egoism.
I would say that it’s not common enough to be rid of ego but when anyone attains that higher consciousness to commit to betterment of the status quo unegoistically way (operating with Transcendent Ego)with humanity’s interest rather than self-interest, that it would be proof of ridding of ego, at least as much as is humanly possible. Eventual enlightenment would be the omega point of shucking ego, if you can entertain that notion.
TY for your comments. It’s great when others respond to my comments that brings blogging alive, doesn’t it?
Best, FL
Nada,
You wrote: Hi Caroline, Due to the undeniable fact that to be a conscious, self-aware entity, aka “human being”, necessarily comes with an exceptional amount of complexity, is to say that “Nature”, too, is an unavoidable part of that complexity. Even the most enlightened person needs to eat, shit and sleep, have shelter, and depending on how that person chooses to live, some form of income. Though it is the vehicle of consciousness, the body is the vulnerable, impermanent form (whether tree, animal or human). But higher levels of consciousness transcend and include the body, this is why we can forget our own safety when we rush into the fire to save another…
I believe this was in response to my earlier statement that everything is Nature–but I see that you didn’t quite understand what I meant by it. Everything is Nature, bar none. Let me just count some of the ways…the periodic chart of elements, electromagnetic attractions and repulsions, the combining of sub-particles to form atoms, atoms to form molecules, molecules to form giant molecules of proteins, proteins to form cells, cells to form multicellular organisms. Consciousness exists at every single level, not just the human. Consciousness is a property of Matter (think about the wave/particular duality). Therefore, all is Nature, not just animals, trees, bodily functions and needs for survival. The human, in all its smallness and greatness, is likewise, Nature and only Nature. Everything we think, do or say; all the mind-junk as well as far reaching depth of understanding and compassion, is nothing but Nature in its flowering. My one dear hope is that eventually we can move this discussion beyond the boundaries of the androcentric ego; after all, Nature likes nothing better but to grow!
Hi Caroline, I did understand your perspective which you have proclaimed to be an “identification.” I get that. But my perspective is just as valid based in my direct experience that Spirit is Nature and Consciousness is Matter at its least self-aware level of existence.
If you want to call the intentional use of the complex triune brain “androcentric,” that is your perspective. It is my perspective,however,that Spirit,at Its most Pure, transcends all things, because Spirit is the Ground af All Things at every level of existence – Matter to Body to Mind to Soul. My actual, direct experience of my very own cells as they were transmuted and transfigured by the Grace of God/dess, is nothing les than the “spiritualization” of matter…this provides a whole new *meaning* to atoms,cells,chemicals, hormones,blood,heart,brain and breath as not the ruler of my consciousness, but tools,important beyond measure as the vehicle of consciousness in this lifetime. That we are “stardust” has become an undeniable truth in my awareness, and I have only a deep and residing love and respect of Nature in all of its manifestations, but Nature is a part of Spirit’s purpose, not separate from it…Spirit is the only “bar none.” Nature comes and goes, it is impermanent. As beautiful and awe-inspiring as Nature is, it rises and falls as a manifestation of Spirit’s multi-dimensional unfolding, and “grows” and reaches, as you say, as an amazing expression of the interconnected web of reality. Only Spirit Endures!
I honor and respect all of that and your unique perspective!
Merry, Merry and a Happy New Year!
LOL(:}
Nada,
Then, what I’d like to know from you is; if existence is one and not two, how is it that you’re able to separate matter and spirit in your own mind? I understand what you’re saying regarding the spiritualization of matter but have a different take on it. In fact, the triune brain expresses it for me literally as well as figuratively. I do believe that we are talking about a higher organization of matter no different in kind as that made by the superposition of the limbic over the reptilian brain stem or the neo-cortex over the limbic.
I know you see spirit as a transcendent force (no problem there); but I think you are not so much aware of the transcendence involved in all manifestation. Each species of matter, from the most simple to the most complex, burst upon Earth with the spirit of transcendence. This spirit, moreover, was not something separate from them, but was them. Every level seeks transcendence. Just look at the freedom the reptile desired for itself–what if it could regulate its body heat, the cold wouldn’t be able to immobilize him and the heat wouldn’t destroy him; or what better chances its progeny would have if it could carry it to term and teach it about life. Same thing goes for the subatomic particles, the atoms, proteins and cells–each one a transcendence from the stage below.
Reorganization of matter comes from desire (your post regarding intention, which speaks of desire for a harmonious world, is an example of such reorganization.) You call that spirit, and rightly so, but! it is also matter reproducing itself in its own image. In any case, it’s an utter fallacy to think that matter is dead. While the particle and wave properties of matter point to a differentiation of sorts, ultimately they comprise an undivided whole.
I agree completely with all you’ve said, Caroline. Our views are not in opposition!Spirit and Matter are Not-two and the Transcendent Spirit is in Nature as its force and Ground. “Nature mysticism” is actually the first “type” of mysticism that unfolds with development, and with stable development(not fleeting), it is transcended and included in the next stage to become a part of the new level of transformation, which is “Diety mysticism.” So, what was revealed about the consciousness of matter and nature,the intricate, beautiful and awesome processes of the most base level of Spirit’s projection into manifestation,continues to be present in awareness, even as an individual is experiencing the next level of more subtle and intelligent processes in purely energetic forms. These are forms that can’t be “measured” the way molocules, cells, and atoms can be measured. Here’s the big schism between Science and Spirituality, and why the rational mind needs to find grounding in measurements, “it’s only ‘real’ if it can be measured” says the scientific mind. (not all of them, of course)
The Illumined Mind revels in the luminosity of natural processes, and dwells in gratitude to serve Spirit’s unfolding thru and as nature. There is no either/or, no matter or Spirit, but! matter is dead without Spirit’s animating presence. I’ve directly experienced how “dead” the matter of my own body is without Spirit’s animating force, and how much more alive I was upon transcending the rational mind…more alive and more creative, more of nature and more of Spirit than with rational mind identifications.
And I’m sorry, but this has to be directly experienced in order to completely “understand.” But I don’t feel we are in any kind of opposing opinion on the fact and role of Nature.LOL
Caroline,I found this quote from Aurobindo and thought it would help you understand my perspective;
“A greater Force is that of the Illumined Mind, a Mind no longer of higher Thought,but of spiritual light. Here the clarity of the spiritual intelligence,its tranquil daylight,gives place or subordinates itself to an intense lustre,a splendour and illumination of the Spirit…A downpour of inwardly visible Light very usually envelops this action;for it must be noted that,contrary to our ordinary conceptions,light is not primarily a material creation and the sense or vision of light accompanying the inner illumination is not merely a subjective visual image or a symbolic phenomenon:light is primarily a spiritual manifestation of the Divine Reality illuminative and creative;material light is a subsequent representation or conversion of it into Matter for the purposes of the material Energy.”
I hope this clarifies and provides some “light” for your thoughts…
LOL (:}
Nada,
I just love it! You say, “I’ve directly experienced how “dead” the matter of my own body is without Spirit’s animating force, and how much more alive I was upon transcending the rational mind…more alive and more creative, more of nature and more of Spirit than with rational mind identifications.”
Matter IS light. It is light that has come together to form a whole, i.e., coalesced. Your whole body, likewise, is light, as well as is everything else in existence. I’m afraid you are still taking the limited, androcentric view when your awareness only concerns your mind–however much it seems to be infused with spirit.
Dear Caroline, The “limited, androcentric view” is no limitation at all if you don’t box yourself in with such descriptions.
The point I was making was that the light of “matter” is the “Spiritual” light of the One Self, and the Mind is simply a tool of discernment projected by the One Self, but once the physical body dies, the Light returns; this is the animating principle that is Soul, which is Subtle Mind. But the matter of the body is dead, unanimated with Life-force.
Now if you are intending the Subtle Body, which is the Body of Light or Soul, you are mistaken to intend that it is “matter.” The Astral Centers (of the Chakra system) have physical correlates, but the centers themselves are not matter. That many individuals thru history have experienced their Subtle Body, and have subsequently talked about it, or have come up with systems for others to directly investigate/experience the Subtle Body or Soul, does not mean they are “androcentric.” It’s because the human being has the capacity for self-reflection, not the lizard, or the tree. You have the ability to “intend,” not the rock or flower. You have sophisticated language ability, not atoms or dirt. To call the use of these abilities “androcentric” is to call yourself “androcentric” because you do these everyday. You have the potential to Unite with the Soul and Spirit in this lifetime, in your own awareness, not a chimp or a dog or an eagle.
And; Do we bury the matter of a dead body in the ground,or incinerate it in a fire, or is it the Body of Light? Bones don’t lie…
And are you aware of the term “anthropomorphize?”
LOL
I heard someone make the statement yesterday that whereas science has mainly been “calling the shots” that spiritual considerations are now being being brought to the fore.
Maybe it’s more accurate to say that science and spiritual values are more and more seeming to be in consonance, as per ecology, sustainability, health, et al.
This seems moving in the direction of seeing life and existence in a more holistic way rather than letting science run the whole show. A good and only way to go, IMO.
I wouldn’t be able to qualifiedly say much about Freud but I wonder if he was coming from a scientific mindset and didn’t have much to say about the Authentic Self or spirituality. Correct or not?
Hi again Frank, Science is indeed coming to some startling conclusions that look very in line with authentic mystical findings. Did you know that Einstein has been considered by many, including Ken Wilber, to be a mystic? Einstein allowed for an Intelligent Creative Force, unknowable and Absolute.
As far as Freud/Superego is concerned; my advice to you is that if theories are being posited and expounded upon that don’t involve the direct experience and development into the higher realms by the researcher themselves, the theory will be flawed. I don’t believe Freud to have direct experiential knowledge, or union, or enlightenment, which means he was making a really good guess based in his research and conclusions, and therefore many have found his ideas in this way to be flawed, including me.
Commentary on the “Self” can be found in varying perspectives from individuals who have direct knowledge, and are not positing theories. Trust only those sources.
Love,Light,Learning (:}