Hi Justin, just noticed your response to my comments on ego from some time ago. It's maybe worth setting it up as a separate topic - albeit i know that some here are not keen on the term, and it's implications for individual existence and what the afterlife may be.

It isn't my intention to somehow overemphasise ego, and especially not at the expense of love - but for sure I may inadvertently have done so.

Thank you for the input, it's indeed possible to get hung up on this sort of stuff and to make it an end in itself.

That said it's in the framework i'm used to very hard to discuss very much on these topics without regularly referring to it - given that it so comprehensively defines what we define as our 'normal' relative, fear based dualistic or perceived (un-)reality, including the afterlife realms. Reality on the other hand is taught and seems experientially to be quite a separate realm - that of the kingdom of God, or of higher mind - non dual, timeless, absolute and built on the eternal truth of love and not based on individuality or selfhood.

It's not dualistic to talk of these as wholly separate, in that it's taught that they simply don't overlap or blend into each other in any way whatsover. The analogy is perhaps that while we can experience both, we snap between them as in out of a dream and into awakening.

Our task is to remember, to awaken, to return to the latter - to return to being love (as we were before separation from God) rather than living through fear. This process is not one of striving, or of intellectually imagining our way into a new belief system. Striving or conceptual thought towards awakening just builds new belief systems which can be exploited by ego - spiritual materialism.

Most classically in the 'holier than thou' syndrome which ranges from outright fundamentalism to very subtle forms of 'one upmanship' based on projecting apparent spiritual achievement, or using apparently loving behaviours for personal advantage. Even in as you warn Justin in getting hung up on ego.

The process is not one of building a new set of beliefs - it's instead one of stilling the mind so that our true and loving nature as well as guidance from higher mind/the Holy Spirit/other sources shines through. This results from progressively quieting the part of mind that's become invested in the belief that it's an individual fighting to survive in the dog eat dog reality we perceive as being outside of ourselves - the ego. Initially so we can hear guidance and  receive intuitive inputs from higher mind, eventually so that our belief in the whole edifice of self falls away and with it our reality which turns out to be created by ego too - so we return to God/reality/our true nature. To reality.

Spiritual 'progress' (time is also ego made it seems) is a bit of a catch 22 exercise for this reason - progress comes not from building new beliefs, but from stilling the mind. ( which is why striving is counterproductive) Key tools and practices are meditation, insight gained through life experience and training/teaching in a more correct 'view' of life which shows that that which causes is fear is not actually real.

There are practices (like Tonglen) which both train the relative mind to behave in a more loving way, and which eventually become a powerful means of focusing loving intention when enough obscuring beliefs fall away to enable a true opening of the heart

This teaching/training is only a temporary tool (compared to a raft used to cross a river and then left behind in Buddhism), and is itself potentially a trap in that rather than using it to drop mind baggage we can start to cling to it as a prop in life.

ACIM use the term forgiveness to describe the central process of dropping the beliefs and emotional orientations that cause us to cling to/to remain stuck - that prevent our progressing.

Within this framework the part of mind that buys into the belief in selfhood and the relative reality is often described as behaving like a controller operating at sub conscious levels that disposes us to perceive selectively in terms that deepen our belief in these unrealities - fear of death and suffering are the central tools it uses. In the background, and in collective form it actually causes us to perceive what we see as our reality (including the relative levels of the afterlife), but has in fact set up that reality too to keep us fearful - to keep us lashing out at others and as a result suffering. Karma is in effect the means by which it transmits the basic beliefs or orientation from life to life. (through the afterlife)

This controller (which operates at both individual and collective levels) is ego - it's clear in the above framework that it's necessary to transcend ego if we're to return to love, or to become able to truly love. We often mistake ego driven and ultimately selfish motivations for love - in other words it's necessary to progressively become able to clearly see what's ego driven.

My personal view is that ego is not an entity so much as a scheme of programming that causes us to perceive selectively in accordance with the fear based and actually illogical belief systems we all accumulate early in life.

I'd agree entirely Justin that it's unwise to characterise it as monster, or to get hung up on it. That's the way to beliefs in stuff like the devil as a malevolent and independently existing entity that led to such awful wrongs over the centuries. That's not however what ACIM teaches - if it happens it's a consequence of the reader's proclivities.

It's not an easy space to work in, in that it brings us face to face with the need to drop all belief/investment in what we learn/instinctively hold dear about ourselves, and as a result it can inspire deep fear. It's hard to see the wood for the trees - we're in effect required to ignore what our every sense is screaming at us and say 'no', i'm listening to this tiny whisper.

For sure the essential element in the process is forgiveness, or the progressive dropping of beliefs. The development of equanimity.

Is this treatment of ego true? It's by definition not for real as it's basically only a conceptual treatment. What i can say however is that as a framework it provides a very effective set of tools for personal transformation.

As in all things it must be best to use it lightly if it can help, and to discard it when it's of no further service. It's perhaps not for nothing that the great spiritual traditions have for millennia used this framework, and that it crops up all over the place.

Thoughts???

Another view on being an individual:

Allowing others to be invididuals - diversity - everyone doesn't have to act/think/talk/dress the same. No need to get others to conform to either your or your group's standards. That's an ego lesson among other things. Being interested in spiritual matters, which I find rare compared to being overly concerned with the body & the daily 3D routine, I think is a test of strength in regards to being an individual. Are you able to allow others to have their 3D pursuit of "happiness" when it turns out that's what they want? Can you stand the heat when those same people want you conform to their pursuit/way of being?

DIY - you don't have to get others to cater for you, and vice versa.

For me that doesn't negate affectional friendships & companionships, and "a little help from your friends". On a deeper level, I believe, don't know yet, that there is a movement towards being source again. But I think there are steps towards it, and not just one step. Think there are more experiences/learning to be made post-Earth before that happens.

Quote:


Ian, you've hit the nail on the head with this statement. (I've put in bold.)

Several books have been written (I've not read them all.) for the purpose of in depth detail of what the ego is and how it covers up the fears that lay beneath it. No doubt this has been helpful to many people.

The ego is tricky and has a way of continually being in denial. Its intent is to cover up fear by attempting to protect itself by not taking responsibility for any negative thoughts, actions and deeds. If a fearful/negative thought comes to mind do you push it away or try to think about something more loving? If so, the ego is covering up the fear.

Instead... muster up your courage and let the fearful thought surface. Just be with it and see where it leads you.

K

Hi Spooky,

Yes, you are correct. It's not always easy. It's a process that requires time and experience. What I've found to be helpful is to try to honestly look at my intent and the result of what I'm creating in my life. If my intent is positive/loving and without any cross-purposes then I know I am acting from a lack of fear/ego.

If our underlying intent seems/feels positive, but is mixed with negative intent this usually shows up in our lack of ability to create what we really want. This intent/motivation is riddled with both positive and negative intent and many times it is the fearful, needy, tricky ego that is getting in the way.

Many times we are so use to our pattern of acting/reacting from an intent that is fearful that we don't even realize we are doing so. It takes a lot of honest self knowledge and understanding, but in general, the areas of your life where things flow smoothly, are where you are coming from a positive/egoless clear intent that is beneficial to your spiritual growth.

Kathy

   Vajra, i've been interested in hypnosis for a long time, and come to believe that it is a powerful tool when used correctly.   It seems that humans, most of them anyways, are far more unconscious than they are conscious to the totality of self and life in general. 

   We have a tendency to think that its our conscious minds where its all at, and that we have full freewill, can choose and change anything. 

  Well that's true...up to a point.  It's the very deep beliefs, patterns, and tendencies within the subconscious or unconscious mind which often rule us and our lives. 

  One effective way to change these subconscious patterns and tendencies, if they are limiting and non constructive in nature is through hypnosis and positive suggestions while in a more relaxed state wherein the unconscious mind becomes more actively receptive and the conscious, intellectual mind becomes more dormant. 

    What is a hypnotic suggestion?   Simple, it's entirely positively stated "fact", and one based around what we WANT/see as helpful/positive and not around what we don't want anymore of. 

  So, if one's fear of water has become limiting and destructive in ones life, then one can change this through hypnosis and positive self suggestions while in a relaxed state. 

   To change the subconscious pattern, you don't tell the latter something like, "you are not going to be afraid of the water anymore."

  This doesn't make any sense to the subconscious mind.  It falls on deaf ears, and if anything it might reinforce the problem rather than the solution for the subconscious mind automatically subtracts the not heard "not" out of the equation, and you're basically telling your subconscious mind "you are going to be afraid of water."

   Instead to really help, you give a positive suggestion like, "Whenever you are in water, you will feel very comfortable, relaxed, and at peace.   You are courageous, brave, and centered in water.  You deeply desire to be in water and deeply enjoy being in it."   See, the focus is entirely on the solution whilst in this receptive/active subconscious state.


  Ok, here's the little leap, connect this to a certain "teaching" and channeled book. 

   It keeps mentioning the problem, along with the solution.  What is it programing?


It's very interesting to note the way and style in which this book is written.  It is written in such a way, through it's constant repetition of the same subject said in slightly different ways, to bore the conscious mind. 

  If one reads this book long enough, the conscious mind will become very "bored", which opens up and makes the subconscious mind much more receptive and impressionable i.e. you are now in a state to be programmed by suggestions.   

   However, as in the first case of the water and the first, negative suggestion, this book has the same affect.   

   The subconscious mind doesn't hear the solution for the emphasis on the problem.   The problem starts to get more programmed in the mind. 

  I have met a few people now who have been involved with this work, who talk much about the "ego" and the problems rather than focusing and emphasizing the solution and what will heal same.   Also instead of focusing on a more real Yeshua via his teachings and example, or through direct guidance, they focus on this supposedly channeled Yeshua.

  It is possible that this book is just another example of another CIA mind control experiment. 

  I have yet to run into a hard core ACIM fan whom i got a strong sense of them being very centered and very loving in a PUL kind of way.  And part of the reason why i sense this is the case, is that i believe this book tends to have a negative influence on people, and fosters imbalance and polarization.   

  When i was reading it, i found myself becoming more polarized, less balanced, and thinking unduly about ego and its influence.  I started to see and focus on ego everywhere, in others, in myself, in life in general.   I was constantly asking myself if this or that thought, intention, or belief was ego/fear based or love  based.

  After awhile, when reading this book i found myself getting really tired while reading same even for a short length of time, and i believe this was a last ditch effort of my Greater self/Guidance to keep me from getting subconsciously programmed while reading same. 

   Then i had a very incisive dream telling me to drop this book because of its polarizing and "ego" programming affect.

  Albert has received numerous messages from his guidance about the non helpful nature of this book and its affect on the subconscious mind. 

  While Albert and i disagree plenty at times, and i know he has lacks, and doesn't always interpret his guidance 100 percent accurately all the time.

I still very much trust his guidance and know he tends to tap into more purely helpful and universal sources, and i do know and trust that he is unusually open to direct guidance like few yet are.   

  So, yeah maybe if he only got one message, i would doubt it and think perhaps he was just misinterpreting, but when you add up that he has received many messages, was open minded enough to read it to begin with, and that i received messages  (that dream, and many deeper but more subtle intuitions) re: its non helpful nature... well gotta go with these rather than the person's perceptions who i've noted time and time again focusing on the problem and sometimes more so than on the solution. 

   

Volu wrote on May 26^th, 2009 at 10:49am:


  For guidance, it's not about control or power over another.  It's just that there is such a thing as being stuck, and there are those that who are not stuck who want to help out those who are stuck.   What's wrong with that?  So what they give them suggestions on how to help themselves?   I gotten many such suggestions from my guidance and when i actually listen to them and follow their advice, lo and behold my life changes for the better.

  Re: what i said earlier, i should have been more specific about what i meant. 

  Here's an analogy: say there is a guy who is into mathematics.  He read about the theories and work of this other mathematician whom many, many other mathematicians think are so accurate, so holistic, and advanced as to have changed the whole mathematical world--indeed this particular mathematician has had a powerful and obvious affect on the world of mathematics, though some have misunderstood and twisted his theories to represent something else. 

  Yet, the first guy into mathematics tries to convince all the other mathematicians that this guy was a crack pot and don't listen to him, nor pay attention to his work, as there is something inherently flawed with same.  He has repeatedly pointed to what appears to him to be flaws in this mathematicians work.

   Now, sure it's possible that this guy might be onto something, but some of the mathematical stuff he promotes is rather obviously flawed (to many mathematicians) and the other mathematicians can clearly see that though the guy himself seemingly cannot. 

  Now this guy might be quite perceptive, and have plenty of accurate, helpful, and constructive beliefs and perceptions in many other areas.  He has things of worth to contribute certainly. 

  But as a fellow mathematician,  i wouldn't want him teaching a mathematics course at my University, and it's really nothing against him as a person, nor any personal dislike or looking down on him, it's just that some of his beliefs and perceptions re: mathematics are a bit stuck or off.   

   This is kind of the view i have when folks are addressing concepts and threads of ego and spiritual growth, but have so minimalized, denigrated, and marginalized both the teachings and example of Yeshua whom was all about spiritual growth and strengthening/focusing on PUL so that "ego" eventually starves to death.   

  I just think perhaps they are not the most helpful people to be speaking on this particular topic, though they may be very perceptive about any other number of other topics and i see plenty good in them in general.  This is something that those who Do hold Yeshua, his teachings and example in high regard might want to consider when listening to such a one on this topic.  Since i know that Vajra does, i pointed out that you don't. 

  So i would like to change what i said to be more reflective of what i meant, and i meant what i said in a more specific way. 

  Plenty of people "think" or feel this way about others, but because of various social fears, they might not say what they really feel and think.   Or, they think what they really feel and think might hurt that person and so they withhold out of a kind of compassion, or it might be a mix of the above two (after all, people and their intentions/motivations are rarely black and white). 

I didn't get the latter sense with you, that you would be hurt by my words, and to me that indicates something positive and growth related about you i also think.

  I would think you of all people would appreciate someone being direct and frank about how they really think and feel?

  Let's not keep those shadow aspects under wraps, lest that others cannot help as reflective mirrors. 

  It is oft better to be sincerely and openly negative than it is to be outwardly, surfacely and fakely nice, supportive, and so called "positive" when in the back of our minds we are thinking or feeling not so nice, supportive, and positive thoughts about a person. 

  It's the latter kind of people who rarely regenerate their limiting and non constructive tendencies because they don't tend to see it themselves for its unspokenness/hiddenness AND because others don't tend to call them on it unless they are rather psychically perceptive and can see through the mask charade. 

Honestly, openly, and yes not always 100 percent positively,
Justin