Notifications
Clear all

The Ego


Energylz
Posts: 16599
Moderator
Topic starter
(@energylz)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago

Not sure which is the best forum to put this in, it was a toss up between Philosophy or Spirituality, so I've opted for the former and let's see how it goes. (Jeez, a moderator who doesn't know the best place to put a thread LOL!) πŸ™‚

I'd be interested to know how other people view the Ego, or even if people consider there to be different types of Ego. So that's the question and point of this thread.

Now unlike some other threads where people ask a question but hold back on giving their own viewpoint till some others have answered, I'm going to put down my own understanding of Ego at this point in time. Of course that doesn't mean that I'm right or that someone elses view is wrong, and I'll be interested to learn if there's other aspects of ego that people have an understanding of that are outside my own.

So here's my understanding... (make yourself a cuppa if you need hehe!)

Several years ago, I think I just had the one understanding of ego; the sort of understanding that people tend to use in general everyday terms in society. For example, if a person said about someone else "oh, he's just acting out of ego" or "gawd, you're so egotistical", this indicates a sort of negative aspect of a person, as if they are doing things; acting or reacting or whatever, in a manner that says "hah! I'm better than you". I'm sure everyone can relate to that understanding and we do see that sort of thing very often in many of the societies we live in.

Then I started on a more "spiritual" path, or certainly what appeared to be a change in the 'normal' direction of life I was previously taking; as I learnt about Chi energy from doing Tai Chi, then I learnt Reiki, EFT and other energy healing methods and concepts. Along with these came an interest in understanding the way people worked and interacted and the workings of mind, and of course the obvious "who am I?" question, which led to me studying other aspects of spirituality such as Buddhist philosophy and the philosophy of Advaita, as well as looking more closely as the commonality of various religious teachings (trying to cut out the interpretations of the churches, and see how the underlying teachings were all essentially trying to put the same things across, just in different words, analogies and stories).

I mentioned Buddhism and Advaita primarily because they are the ones that have lent themselves to the terminology that I will use in describing my other understanding of the Ego, though the same understanding can, I believe, be found in other teachings in various ways.

Firstly, the latter understanding of Ego relates to Attachment. As the word suggests, attachment is when we hold onto something and in Buddhism, one of the goals of practice is to be free of attachments. Many mistake this to mean that they have to give up their jobs, their homes, their family, shave their head and live in a state of permanent meditation in some buddhist retreat/centre somewhere, but that's not the case. As my buddhist teacher explained, we are free of attachment if, when we no longer have something, we are not negatively effected by it.

For example, if we are attached to money, and for some reason we lose that money, or are forced to spend it, many will feel a great loss, and as they say, the more money you have, the more you have to lose. But if we are not attached to money, and we lose it/spend it or whatever, we can recognise that this is not the end of the world, and as long as we are alive and we are safe, then nobody is actually hurt, and things can change in the future. So attachment isn't about giving up everything, it's about not letting it effect us when something we take to be 'ours' stops being 'ours'. The classic saying in buddhism (and elsewhere) is, you came into this world with nothing and you will leave it with nothing, so why try and hold onto it. But that in itself doesn't explain ego.

Nextly, in the teachings of Advaita, we get to learn about non-duality. The name Advaita literally means "not two", probably because when people talk of "Oneness" there's a misconception that there is one thing but there is still something "other"; however, the oneness it refers to is everything that there is... there is no "other". When we consider there to be something "other" then this is a concept of duality. Obviously the teachings around this are expansive and can take years to learn and understand in depth, intellectually, but in summary, where two things are seen as seperate we have duality, and where all is considered as one we have non-duality.

Also, further in the teachings of Advaita, there is an understanding that duality causes conflict. Let's see if I can explain... When we see something as "other" we start to consider everything apart from our little ol' self as being "other", then, as we have some "other" things that come into our posession we have that buddhist attachment thing going on, and these things in our posession become "ours" and "not yours". Then, due to that attachment, if we lose these things or someone else tries to take them from us, this causes our little self and issue, and we then look to blame "others" for this, hence conflict arises (sometimes we even blame ourselves and this causes self conflict).

Again from Advaita, they refer to "things in the creation". Now this could be understood from a christian viewpoint if you like as the creation of things by God etc. etc. but then I would argue (politely of course hehe!) that viewing God as seperate from the "things" is a dualistic view, so doesn't quite fit, though it's a fairly good approximation πŸ˜‰ So, what is meant by "things in the creation". Well this actually refers to any "thing" you like. It could be a physical thing, or a mentally constructed thing (a thought, an idea etc.), an emotional thing or whatever... basically... if you can name or describe it, it's something in creation.

Finally, in Sanskrit, the word for the ego is "ahankara" and this refers to the Aham (Aha"n" when combined with another word) which is the non dualistic Self (or Oneness) and Kara which is any "thing in creation". So when the Oneness becomes attached to anything in creation this is Ego. It's a bit like saying, if I see myself as seperate from other and then attain attachments to "things" whatever those things are, then ego is created and thus conflict will arise. This is the a form of ego that we all exhibit and can certainly see in ourselves, and whilst my first understanding of Ego has a negative feel to it, as if one is being offensive, this other way of seeing ego is not really offensive, but more of an intellectualising of what we all exhibit.

Of course going around and saying that someone has an ego, will usually be met with an understanding around what I first described, and hence offence usally arises. But with the knowledge of the latter understanding, saying someone is working from within ego doesn't particularly have to be taken as offensive and can be a guidance or recognition that allows us to recognise our own attachments to things and thus choose to deal with those.

In truth though, the two things are really the same when studied, but the way it is expressed can make a difference (and that's true of a lot of things in speech). A person who goes around with an attitude of "hah! I'm better than you" is firstly seeing themselves as seperate from others (the "I" and "you") so is working within duality, and they are holding onto something, in this case an idea of being "better" which they fear losing, so that is the attachment, and if someone or something happens to try and remove that thing, then conflict will arise from it.

I hope I've explained my understanding clearly enough (I know it was a long read, but you should try the actual teachings hehe!). So, a little bit rambling, and a little bit clarifying my own thoughts on this (always good to re-cover our own understandings and ensure it makes sense still, at least to ourselves), but I'd certainly be interested if people from other spiritual walks (or otherwise) have teachings or other understandings of the ego they would wish to share, or even just stories of recognising ego in themselves or others (without being offensive to others of course! hehe!).

πŸ™‚

All Love and Reiki Hugs

21 Replies
NICE_1
Posts: 1165
(@nice_1)
Noble Member
Joined: 11 years ago

(Jeez, a moderator who doesn't know the best place to put a thread LOL!) πŸ™‚

Perhaps the ego got in the way giles tee heee . .:p

I will take a read of the entire post and get back to you ...

x dazzle x

Reply
jnani
Posts: 1838
(@jnani)
Noble Member
Joined: 12 years ago

Its not going to go down well if I say , there is no ego, is it? The fundamental fault in singing songs about ego is that it keeps you fighting with the shadow...You are pure consciousness ( infact not even that, but for now "pure consciousness" will do just fine ...)

Illusion of a rope taken for snake. Then one finds out there was not a snake, was not even a rope...
...and people are wrtiing treatises about this snake, describing their understanding of it, nature, asking others how they perceive this snake, whats its colour, nature, characteristics..., how it can be useful in practical life, how to transcend it etc etc...and this snake was a rope all along!

your true natue and ego has no place in it, only your head has a concept about ego. You don't have to wade through the misty valleys of "ego" to reach the your true nature either. Ego is not a step towards sat chit, anand. it is another conceptual hinderance. Its another "enemy" , a mighty one, because of your own mental investment in it-to fight with before you can get anywhere...colossal waste of energy and time.

Let the rope be rope. withdraw the idea you put out there that it is a snake-there is no snake!

Reply
Paul Crick
Posts: 4956
(@paul-crick_1611052763)
Famed Member
Joined: 19 years ago

Hi Giles

The way that I perceive the ego and teach it is, the ego is the the mind/body interface aspect of consciousness, which allows consciousness which is non physical to interact with our body which obviously is physical.

With the ego interface being so closely connected with our physicality, it also helps to create our physical self image or I AM self perception, but as our ego interface is directly influenced by our other aspects of consciousness, then unfortunately words like egotistical, do not actually refer to the ego at all, but to our core way of being, the ego comes in for a lot of flack about things which it has little control over.

One of the biggest misconceptions that I come across all of the time, is that we have to let go of or reject our ego, the very act of rejecting self creates inner divisions in place of wholeness.

As for separateness, I perceive that as one of the reasons for coming here, without our physical bodies which are all different, it would be very difficult to perceive ourselves as being separate, so whilst it is good to be mindful of the oneness, it is also good to embrace the separateness that we have come here to experience.

Reply
Crowan
Posts: 3429
(@crowan)
Famed Member
Joined: 12 years ago

One of the biggest misconceptions that I come across all of the time, is that we have to let go of or reject our ego, the very act of rejecting self creates inner divisions in place of wholeness.


I agree completely with this statement. (Which isn’t to say that Paul will agree with anything I write below – I would guess not!;)) Speaking shamanically, rejecting part of our self is inviting soul loss and power loss. In any case, it isn't possible. The ego is a part of what makes us human.
We do talk about "putting our ego on the shelf" for the duration of doing shamanic healing. It's a way of explaining to students that the spirits know what they are doing and we should be able to go along with what they direct us to do. In similar vein, we talk about not "being attached to the outcome", in that we are not in a position to know what is the best result for anyone else (sometimes not even for ourselves).

Reply
Energylz
Posts: 16599
Moderator
Topic starter
(@energylz)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago

Hi Daz,

Perhaps the ego got in the way giles tee heee . .:p

Well if you think you know better.... (lol! just kidding! ;))

I will take a read of the entire post and get back to you ...

I'm sure you'll have an interesting response. I look forward to it.

Hi Ruby,

Its not going to go down well if I say , there is no ego, is it?

Only if I let my ego get in the way. πŸ˜‰ Seriously though, I'm interested in all perspectives.

The fundamental fault in singing songs about ego is that it keeps you fighting with the shadow...You are pure consciousness ( infact not even that, but for now "pure consciousness" will do just fine ...)

Illusion of a rope taken for snake. Then one finds out there was not a snake, was not even a rope...
...and people are wrtiing treatises about this snake, describing their understanding of it, nature, asking others how they perceive this snake, whats its colour, nature, characteristics..., how it can be useful in practical life, how to transcend it etc etc...and this snake was a rope all along!

your true natue and ego has no place in it, only your head has a concept about ego. You don't have to wade through the misty valleys of "ego" to reach the your true nature either. Ego is not a step towards sat chit, anand. it is another conceptual hinderance. Its another "enemy" , a mighty one, because of your own mental investment in it-to fight with before you can get anywhere...colossal waste of energy and time.

Let the rope be rope. withdraw the idea you put out there that it is a snake-there is no snake!

Ok, that's an interesting way of looking at it, though not sure I'd call it a fault to consider the nature of Ego, or that it's a colossal waste of energy and time. The very fact we have a word for it and various teachings teach about it means that it exists in some sense, even if the actual nature of it is no-thing.

I think for many people (and I can only speak from personal experience), they live in a life where they are constantly attached to things and the conflict arises because of this, and whilst many recognise there are issues with themselves (or as some consider it "with life") they fail to understand how they can rectify those issues. By reaching some intellectual understanding (if that's the persons way of looking at things) of the Ego, as I have done and in the way other responses here seem to indicate, this seems to act as a catalyst for change; a way of guiding oneself to a point a realization whereby the issues can be resolved, whilst in itself it doesn't need attaching to. As you say, Ego is not a step towards sat, chit, ananda (truth, consciousness, bliss), but recognising/realizing Ego allows the attachments within it to be freed, and thus we become One. Different people have different Ego attachments to different terminologies and understandings from their lives, so I believe that having a variety of ways of understanding the same things allows each to find the truth through a model they understand. Once we have the conceptual understanding we do not need to hold onto it, because when it is realized, it becomes knowledge and is simply known.

So, as per your snake-rope analogy, there is an Snake, but we must not hold onto that snake as if it is real.

Hi Paul,

Hi Giles

The way that I perceive the ego and teach it is, the ego is the the mind/body interface aspect of consciousness, which allows consciousness which is non physical to interact with our body which obviously is physical.

Sounds similar to the Ahankara, the Self attaching to something in Creation; Consciousness attaching to the "physical" (if you consider mind etc. to be physical too)

With the ego interface being so closely connected with our physicality, it also helps to create our physical self image or I AM self perception, but as our ego interface is directly influenced by our other aspects of consciousness, then unfortunately words like egotistical, do not actually refer to the ego at all, but to our core way of being, the ego comes in for a lot of flack about things which it has little control over.

One of the biggest misconceptions that I come across all of the time, is that we have to let go of or reject our ego, the very act of rejecting self creates inner divisions in place of wholeness.

Absolutely, we cannot let go of the ego, though we can recognise the attachments created through it and be free of those. The Ego certainly does come in for a lot of flack. Tell someone they've got an ego and more often than not they'll get very defensive.

As for separateness, I perceive that as one of the reasons for coming here, without our physical bodies which are all different, it would be very difficult to perceive ourselves as being separate, so whilst it is good to be mindful of the oneness, it is also good to embrace the separateness that we have come here to experience.

Yes. I think in line with what Ruby was saying as well, recognise the Oneness, recognise the seperateness created through Ego, and with the realization comes the ability to just BE and not get attached to any one thing.

Hi Jane,

I agree completely with this statement. (Which isn’t to say that Paul will agree with anything I write below – I would guess not!;))


LOL!

Speaking shamanically, rejecting part of our self is inviting soul loss and power loss. In any case, it isn't possible. The ego is a part of what makes us human.

I have to say, the shamanic way of life is not something I'm deeply familiar with, though it's one of those that I've always been intruiged to understand more of.

When you say "rejecting part of our self", can you explain what it is that is doing the rejecting? i.e. is this the mind rejecting something? is it something done consciously, unconsciouly, in this life or other lives etc? I think I get the idea that we all have a soul and we can lose parts of that soul into the universe/ether/spirit world (what would you call it?) and that shamanism helps to retrieve those lost parts and bring them back together to make us whole.

We do talk about "putting our ego on the shelf" for the duration of doing shamanic healing. It's a way of explaining to students that the spirits know what they are doing and we should be able to go along with what they direct us to do.


I like that. It's a bit like saying "don't consider yourself to be better or know better than the spirits, just be at One with them and go along with it".


In similar vein, we talk about not "being attached to the outcome", in that we are not in a position to know what is the best result for anyone else (sometimes not even for ourselves).

Yes, there certainly seems to be some similarity in the understanding even if the terminology varies somewhat. Interesting that attachment is considered in shamanism too.

Thanks for the replies so far. Very englightening. πŸ™‚

All Love and Reiki Hugs

Reply
jnani
Posts: 1838
(@jnani)
Noble Member
Joined: 12 years ago

Hi Daz,

Well if you think you know better.... (lol! just kidding! ;))

I'm sure you'll have an interesting response. I look forward to it.

Hi Ruby,

Only if I let my ego get in the way. πŸ˜‰ Seriously though, I'm interested in all perspectives.

Ok, that's an interesting way of looking at it, though not sure I'd call it a fault to consider the nature of Ego, or that it's a colossal waste of energy and time. The very fact we have a word for it and various teachings teach about it means that it exists in some sense, even if the actual nature of it is no-thing.

I think for many people (and I can only speak from personal experience), they live in a life where they are constantly attached to things and the conflict arises because of this, and whilst many recognise there are issues with themselves (or as some consider it "with life") they fail to understand how they can rectify those issues. By reaching some intellectual understanding (if that's the persons way of looking at things) of the Ego, as I have done and in the way other responses here seem to indicate, this seems to act as a catalyst for change; a way of guiding oneself to a point a realization whereby the issues can be resolved, whilst in itself it doesn't need attaching to. As you say, Ego is not a step towards sat, chit, ananda (truth, consciousness, bliss), but recognising/realizing Ego allows the attachments within it to be freed, and thus we become One. Different people have different Ego attachments to different terminologies and understandings from their lives, so I believe that having a variety of ways of understanding the same things allows each to find the truth through a model they understand. Once we have the conceptual understanding we do not need to hold onto it, because when it is realized, it becomes knowledge and is simply known.

So, as per your snake-rope analogy, there is an Snake, but we must not hold onto that snake as if it is real.

All Love and Reiki Hugs

Don't go justifying words. Lot of trouble! so many abstract concepts...hell, heaven...how far can you bend backwards saying if the word exist...there is conceptual understandings about everything! Human experience is lived through words, words and more words. Beyond words is the relm of ego-lessness. No-mind.

I did not say don't hold onto the snake. I said there is no snake, its a rope! The snake is a perceptional thing. I say there is no ego, there is only self. attchment etc that you talk about comes not because of ego, but one 'thinks' that one is separate from the whole.Thinking that "you are" as a separate entity. "Thinking". where is this ego of yours? or anybody's?

Conceptual understanding only takes one deeper into the maze, seldom out of it. Truth is never found through discussions...I know this thread is not about Truth but why would you talk about ego if you were not interested in Truth- in a bizzare way it is about Truth....
That is to say Giles, I do recognize a humbleness in your ways that is rare and it is sweet.
Ego, like dark is a non-entity. You cannot do anything with it, because it is absence of light. What you can do is, light a bulb. The so called ego is only an ignorance of Self. You can start resting in Self right now and it will gradually start to reveal itself.

You rest in ego, understand it, fight it, try to transcend it, do something about it-meditations etc-the whole circus, it will get stronger. You can only ever find out that it was a folly to believe there was dark, after a candle has been lit. and yet prior to the light, darkness is all there is. Thee is only Self, no ego
The direction decides where you end up..

Reply
Paul Crick
Posts: 4956
(@paul-crick_1611052763)
Famed Member
Joined: 19 years ago

Hi Giles

Sounds similar to the Ahankara, the Self attaching to something in Creation; Consciousness attaching to the "physical" (if you consider mind etc. to be physical too)

No. I do not consider our mind to be physical, I perceive the mind to be an aspect of consciousness, but the mind has to be able to interact with our physicality, otherwise we would not be able to make use of our physical senses, we would just be consciousness or thought, which is what we are before we come here.

I do not perceive an attachment in my understanding, I know that consciousness is not physical and it needs a way of interacting with the body which is physical, hence the mind body interface which we call the ego. πŸ™‚

Reply
NICE_1
Posts: 1165
(@nice_1)
Noble Member
Joined: 11 years ago

Hi All .

I would say the self is all there is that is of the mind . The self is the experience and is of the experience for the one that is conscious . What each individual relates the self to be will for many be unique and yet the self is the same self .

For an individual that is humble and relates the self to being nothing is still ego . The β€˜I’ am is ego, but whilst one is of the mind one will always be conscious of self on some level until one is beyond self .

The ego is neither good or bad, the ego is a mind set that one is functioning within that will reflect that self related image .

Any mindful evaluation of the self that one can have will not be estranged from the self that is of the mind .

One maybe saturated by there own self importance and be blinded by their own ego whereas another may catch it’s reflection and deny seeing it . One may accept seeing there ego and do nothing about there expression whilst another will reflect deeply on what has been self exposed .

It’s all about awareness I would say .. One may find that as they journey through life that they can relate self to all there is whilst anothers journey entails renouncing everything that they are not ..

x daz x

Reply
Crowan
Posts: 3429
(@crowan)
Famed Member
Joined: 12 years ago

When you say "rejecting part of our self", can you explain what it is that is doing the rejecting? i.e. is this the mind rejecting something? is it something done consciously, unconsciouly, in this life or other lives etc? I think I get the idea that we all have a soul and we can lose parts of that soul into the universe/ether/spirit world (what would you call it?) and that shamanism helps to retrieve those lost parts and bring them back together to make us whole.

In those religions that talk of one god, there is a belief in one soul. In many others, there is a belief in multiple souls. The Inuit, for example, talk of each part of the body having its own soul. Many cultures believe in at least two – the Free Soul that leaves at death and the Body Soul that is, if you like, the spirit of the body and doesn’t leave at death.
Whether we talk about losing a soul or a soul-part doesn’t really matter in practical terms (and I’ve just put in the above for interest). It happens for several reasons. The most obvious is sudden trauma. Another common reason is an on-going situation that the soul cannot cope with (abuse of various kinds, for example).
One reason is that we are not valued or thought worthy by someone important to us – a parent, a lover, a boss etc.
However, another cause is that we think we are not worthy or we don’t value ourselves. This is not viable for the particular soul (or soul part) and it will leave. Souls can seem very selfish – β€œI’m not putting up with this. I’m off!” But, of course, we don’t think like that about ourselves unless others have taught us to do so.
So, if we reject part of our self, it is the part that is left that has rejected. Imagine a situation where a child is sexually, physically or emotionally abused by a parent. The child in that situation learns worthlessness. Soul parts will go of their own volition because of the trauma, but there will also be some rejection going on – keeping the part that knows that the child is as worthwhile as anyone else will simply make life harder than it already is. This is one reason that people can learn to be victims. It is also a good reason for not trying to get back the soul yourself – you were the one who rejected it in the first place.
I have known many people be able to let go of fear, worthlessness and repressed anger once the soul retrieval is gone.
I hope this explains it. Please ask more if you want to.

Reply
Energylz
Posts: 16599
Moderator
Topic starter
(@energylz)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago

Hi Ruby,

Don't go justifying words. Lot of trouble! so many abstract concepts...hell, heaven...how far can you bend backwards saying if the word exist...there is conceptual understandings about everything! Human experience is lived through words, words and more words. Beyond words is the relm of ego-lessness. No-mind.

I did not say don't hold onto the snake. I said there is no snake, its a rope! The snake is a perceptional thing.

Yes, that what I was saying, the snake is just a perception. We (well many people, not all) do hold onto it as if it were real, but in truth it's not, so by recognition of what it truly is (or isn't, who cares eh! :D) that attachment can be let go and it can just Be.

I say there is no ego, there is only self. attchment etc that you talk about comes not because of ego, but one 'thinks' that one is separate from the whole.Thinking that "you are" as a separate entity. "Thinking". where is this ego of yours? or anybody's?

Well that was the point of my own understanding. The ego isn't a separate or tangible thing, but as you say, when we view separateness (duality), then we create an attachment from our little dualistic self to "other" things. So the ego is a conceptual thing certainly and that is what is explained in the teaching of Advaita.

Conceptual understanding only takes one deeper into the maze, seldom out of it.

Yes, but some people have been led into the maze already, and need a conceptual understanding to be able to recognise the maze doesn't really exist. Even yourself, you clearly have an understanding of what the ego is or isn't, so you have to have gathered conceptual teaching to reach that understanding and be able to recognise that the ego is what it is (or isn't, LOL! this could get confusing).

Truth is never found through discussions...I know this thread is not about Truth but why would you talk about ego if you were not interested in Truth- in a bizzare way it is about Truth....

Absolutely agree. Discussions share/teach knowledge of one person, but to another person that is simply information. For it to become truth a person has to incorporate it into their practice and test it for themselves. When they do that then the truth arises, whether that shows the information to be valid or not.

That is to say Giles, I do recognize a humbleness in your ways that is rare and it is sweet.

Aww, that's nice of you to say so. :hug: I very much enjoy your words, and whilst I can see that, for some people, they may not understand the deep meaning you are providing straight away, there is certainly much wisdom and experience in your words when I relate it to my own understanding. Can I ask what your understandings are based on? It appears somewhat based around vedic teachings and the baghavad gita, but that's just my opinion.

Ego, like dark is a non-entity. You cannot do anything with it, because it is absence of light. What you can do is, light a bulb. The so called ego is only an ignorance of Self. You can start resting in Self right now and it will gradually start to reveal itself.

You rest in ego, understand it, fight it, try to transcend it, do something about it-meditations etc-the whole circus, it will get stronger. You can only ever find out that it was a folly to believe there was dark, after a candle has been lit. and yet prior to the light, darkness is all there is. Thee is only Self, no ego
The direction decides where you end up..

Though ultimately we end up as Self. πŸ˜‰

All Love and Reiki Hugs

Reply
Energylz
Posts: 16599
Moderator
Topic starter
(@energylz)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago

Hi Paul,

Hi Giles

No. I do not consider our mind to be physical, I perceive the mind to be an aspect of consciousness, but the mind has to be able to interact with our physicality, otherwise we would not be able to make use of our physical senses, we would just be consciousness or thought, which is what we are before we come here.

Hmmm... ok, you've got me thinking (how dare you! hehe!)...

I can see what you're saying about mind being an aspect of the One consciousness (Self), as to me that's the energy of the universe flowing. So do you consider the brain to be the interface between Self and physicality or would you also consider there to be a physical mind as part of the physical body/brain? Sort of like two things we could call mind, one being an aspect of the Oneness and one that is manifested by the physical? Or is it rather that the physical body is just a vessel through which Oneness manifests? Just thinking out loud. πŸ™‚

I do not perceive an attachment in my understanding, I know that consciousness is not physical and it needs a way of interacting with the body which is physical, hence the mind body interface which we call the ego. πŸ™‚

Ok, so though you say it's not attachment, we're still talking about a similar thing, with the Self interacting with something in creation (in the terms I used in my initial post), so my understanding of attachment is your interface?

All Love and Reiki Hugs

Reply
jnani
Posts: 1838
(@jnani)
Noble Member
Joined: 12 years ago

Aww, that's nice of you to say so. :hug: I very much enjoy your words, and whilst I can see that, for some people, they may not understand the deep meaning you are providing straight away, there is certainly much wisdom and experience in your words when I relate it to my own understanding. Can I ask what your understandings are based on? It appears somewhat based around vedic teachings and the baghavad gita, but that's just my opinion.

Giles it is a massive mish mash of all sorts, everything was delved into - vedanta, sikhism,Jain, Budhist, bhakti, zen, kundalini, sufi wisdom, Atheisism, scientology(yeah! just in case) advaita etc etc...no stone untrurned so to speak... what I call "circus" now...

When that small perceptional correction that there never was a "personal i" takes place, the understanding becomes universal. It has gist of every religion, every path. So you are right vedic is the background by virtue/(fault!) of being Indian but there is bit of everything in the mix-- with a lavish sprinkling of madness

Reply
WildStrawberry
Posts: 954
(@wildstrawberry)
Prominent Member
Joined: 11 years ago

Hi Ruby,

Aww, that's nice of you to say so. :hug: I very much enjoy your words, and whilst I can see that, for some people, they may not understand the deep meaning you are providing straight away, there is certainly much wisdom and experience in your words when I relate it to my own understanding. Can I ask what your understandings are based on? It appears somewhat based around vedic teachings and the baghavad gita, but that's just my opinion.

....I'm pretty sure that Ruby is 'living the dream' Giles - all of this is no longer just 'head stuff' for her...

Ruby, could you be described as a Shaktipat Guru... or have I misunderstood?

Reply
Energylz
Posts: 16599
Moderator
Topic starter
(@energylz)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago

Hi Daz,

I would say the self is all there is that is of the mind . The self is the experience and is of the experience for the one that is conscious . What each individual relates the self to be will for many be unique and yet the self is the same self.

Little confused about which self you're referring to, though ultimately I understand you are saying that whatever self we perceive it's all the One Self (Consciousness). So I guess what you're saying is that we perceive a separate self, though in truth we are all connected as One.

For an individual that is humble and relates the self to being nothing is still ego . The β€˜I’ am is ego, but whilst one is of the mind one will always be conscious of self on some level until one is beyond self .

The ego is neither good or bad, the ego is a mind set that one is functioning within that will reflect that self related image .

Any mindful evaluation of the self that one can have will not be estranged from the self that is of the mind .

Absolutely, recognising self can only be done within the mind, but that is not The Self in total, but just a minds perception or conceptualisation. Agree that the ego is neither good nor bad; as I said in my first post, many people see ego in the way "society" does, as something negative (and the part that society is recognising can be negative), but the ego is what it is, and we all have it (even though as Ruby says, it's really no thing).

One maybe saturated by there own self importance and be blinded by their own ego whereas another may catch it’s reflection and deny seeing it . One may accept seeing there ego and do nothing about there expression whilst another will reflect deeply on what has been self exposed .

It’s all about awareness I would say .. One may find that as they journey through life that they can relate self to all there is whilst anothers journey entails renouncing everything that they are not ..

Nicely described. πŸ™‚

All Love and Reiki Hugs

Reply
Energylz
Posts: 16599
Moderator
Topic starter
(@energylz)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago

Hi Jane,

In those religions that talk of one god, there is a belief in one soul. In many others, there is a belief in multiple souls. The Inuit, for example, talk of each part of the body having its own soul. Many cultures believe in at least two – the Free Soul that leaves at death and the Body Soul that is, if you like, the spirit of the body and doesn’t leave at death. Whether we talk about losing a soul or a soul-part doesn’t really matter in practical terms (and I’ve just put in the above for interest).

And interesting it is too. πŸ™‚

It happens for several reasons. The most obvious is sudden trauma. Another common reason is an on-going situation that the soul cannot cope with (abuse of various kinds, for example).
One reason is that we are not valued or thought worthy by someone important to us – a parent, a lover, a boss etc.
However, another cause is that we think we are not worthy or we don’t value ourselves. This is not viable for the particular soul (or soul part) and it will leave. Souls can seem very selfish – β€œI’m not putting up with this. I’m off!” But, of course, we don’t think like that about ourselves unless others have taught us to do so.
So, if we reject part of our self, it is the part that is left that has rejected. Imagine a situation where a child is sexually, physically or emotionally abused by a parent. The child in that situation learns worthlessness. Soul parts will go of their own volition because of the trauma, but there will also be some rejection going on – keeping the part that knows that the child is as worthwhile as anyone else will simply make life harder than it already is. This is one reason that people can learn to be victims. It is also a good reason for not trying to get back the soul yourself – you were the one who rejected it in the first place.
I have known many people be able to let go of fear, worthlessness and repressed anger once the soul retrieval is gone.
I hope this explains it. Please ask more if you want to.

Explains it nicely. So as a shaman do you perceive these soul parts to be "things" of their own volition, and the spirits are something to help bring those parts back to us, or is it a conceptual framework or terminology that is used to explain the issues a person has, so that if, for example, a person has lost their love for certain people, then that love is still within them but they need help to find it again within themselves?
When I was having vedic teachings an analogy was used of a lightbulb, and that we are always the lightbulb, but over time dust settles on it and the light cannot always been seen, so we need to dust it off, and there we will find the light that is always there, just as the sun behind the clouds is still there, even if we cannot see it.

All Love and Reiki Hugs

Reply
Energylz
Posts: 16599
Moderator
Topic starter
(@energylz)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago

Hi Ruby,

Giles it is a massive mish mash of all sorts, everything was delved into - vedanta, sikhism,Jain, Budhist, bhakti, zen, kundalini, sufi wisdom, Atheisism, scientology(yeah! just in case) advaita etc etc...no stone untrurned so to speak... what I call "circus" now...

When that small perceptional correction that there never was a "personal i" takes place, the understanding becomes universal. It has gist of every religion, every path. So you are right vedic is the background by virtue/(fault!) of being Indian but there is bit of everything in the mix-- with a lavish sprinkling of madness

No fault in being Indian. Provides a good starting point for spiritual understanding from what I gather, providing you're prepared to look outside the box so to speak, which obviously you have done. And of course a lavish sprinkling of madness always helps. πŸ˜€

All Love and Reiki Hugs

Reply
Energylz
Posts: 16599
Moderator
Topic starter
(@energylz)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago

....I'm pretty sure that Ruby is 'living the dream' Giles - all of this is no longer just 'head stuff' for her...

Absolutely, I think we all aim to live it... though we get the occasional distraction. hehe!

All Love and Reiki Hugs

Reply
Paul Crick
Posts: 4956
(@paul-crick_1611052763)
Famed Member
Joined: 19 years ago

Hi Giles

Hmmm... ok, you've got me thinking (how dare you! hehe!)...

Come on Giles, I don't think you ever stop thinking, I can hear the cogs turning. πŸ˜‰

I can see what you're saying about mind being an aspect of the One consciousness (Self), as to me that's the energy of the universe flowing. So do you consider the brain to be the interface between Self and physicality or would you also consider there to be a physical mind as part of the physical body/brain? Sort of like two things we could call mind, one being an aspect of the Oneness and one that is manifested by the physical? Or is it rather that the physical body is just a vessel through which Oneness manifests? Just thinking out loud.

That sounds a bit jumbled up Giles, let me see if I can clear the water a bit. πŸ™‚

The brain is completely physical, it is the central processor of the body, when we want to move, we think move within consciousness, that information has to get through to the brain with the relevant information of how we wish to move, the brain then processes the information and away we go.

We know from dealing with people who have had a stroke, that they still think the same, so they think within consciousness 'move my arm', but the information within consciousness is either not getting through to the brain in the correct way for it to interpret it, or the neural pathways have been damaged and the signals can't get through to the muscles.

But all is often not lost, for if they go through the same learning process that they used when they originally learnt how to move and coordinate, then they can often learn to function again.

It is the same with someone who is unconscious, their brain can be showing no activity, but the person has awareness within consciousness, so in order for the information that I am processing within consciousness, to get through to the physical brain so that it can control the body and the information that is coming from my body to get into consciousness, I need a interface, a bit like a modern on a computer allows our typing and mouse clicks to interface with the internet.

This is what I perceive as the mind/body ego interface, if that goes wrong, then we can't function properly on a physical level, if you consider that all of the information that we are processing within consciousness is being fed straight into the brain, so that it is ready to react instantly to our thoughts, then when we overload our thinking aspect of consciousness (which is what I perceive the mind to be), then we also overload our physical brain which is monitoring and awaiting instructions.

I am not sure if that has cleared the water or given you a bump on the head, but think about it for a while, I am sure that it will unfold for you. πŸ™‚

Ok, so though you say it's not attachment, we're still talking about a similar thing, with the Self interacting with something in creation (in the terms I used in my initial post), so my understanding of attachment is your interface?

If we put a piece of tissue under a microscope, then if it is strong enough we will see the individual cells which make up the structure of the tissue, but just as all of the cells in the body have originated from one cell, so they are all one, our aspects of consciousness that we require to enable us to function as a human being, have all come form one consciousness, so they are all one.

We are all human beings who are made up of many parts (both physical and consciousness), put all of the parts together and that makes us whole as a human being, take away the physical human from the conscious being (like when someone dies) and we end up with one aspect of consciousness, everything else is only there to allow us to experience this life.

I hope that helps.

Reply
jnani
Posts: 1838
(@jnani)
Noble Member
Joined: 12 years ago

....I'm pretty sure that Ruby is 'living the dream' Giles - all of this is no longer just 'head stuff' for her...

Ruby, could you be described as a Shaktipat Guru... or have I misunderstood?

Hi wildstrawbery
You have not misunderstood
x

Reply
Energylz
Posts: 16599
Moderator
Topic starter
(@energylz)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago

Hi Paul,

Come on Giles, I don't think you ever stop thinking, I can hear the cogs turning. πŸ˜‰

Well by your definition, thoughts create consciousness, so I guess I don't stop thinking hehe! πŸ˜‰

That sounds a bit jumbled up Giles, let me see if I can clear the water a bit. πŸ™‚

Upon re-reading, it sounded alright to me πŸ˜€ but let's see what you have to say...

The brain is completely physical, it is the central processor of the body, when we want to move, we think move within consciousness, that information has to get through to the brain with the relevant information of how we wish to move, the brain then processes the information and away we go.

We know from dealing with people who have had a stroke, that they still think the same, so they think within consciousness 'move my arm', but the information within consciousness is either not getting through to the brain in the correct way for it to interpret it, or the neural pathways have been damaged and the signals can't get through to the muscles.

But all is often not lost, for if they go through the same learning process that they used when they originally learnt how to move and coordinate, then they can often learn to function again.

It is the same with someone who is unconscious, their brain can be showing no activity, but the person has awareness within consciousness, so in order for the information that I am processing within consciousness, to get through to the physical brain so that it can control the body and the information that is coming from my body to get into consciousness, I need a interface, a bit like a modern on a computer allows our typing and mouse clicks to interface with the internet.

Ok, well that all seems logical enough. I can see where you're coming from and working with computers myself, the interface scenario seems like a sound way of looking at it.... however...
What's interesting to me though is, as you know, I also keep my eye on the science world too, and recent studies (a few years back now) seem to have found that a persons actions actually seem to start taking place a few seconds before any conscious thought about making that action. (Various sources on the interweb, though it's described on Wiki: [url]Neuroscience of free will - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url])

So that would seem to suggest something else is happening... let me see what options we have, assuming of course science has got it's findings right (and we know they don't always)...

a) the Consciousness communicates with the brain to instruct it what to do, the brain signals to the muscles to start moving, and then the neural signals about what is happening to the body manifest after that somehow in relation to the action being taken. This would indicate that science isn't picking up on the initial communication happening through the brain interface but is managing to detect the after effects in the brain.

b) the Consciousness communicates directly with the physical body as the physical body is an aspect of Oneness and the actions being taken feedback to the brain to manifest as conscious thoughts about what actions are happening (as if we are consciously choosing how to act). This would rely on a concept of two levels of consciousness, the Consciousness of Oneness and the conscious mind of the physical brain (we're getting back to the two minds things I mentioned). It also suggests that the brain isn't the physical interface through which Consciousness interacts with the rest of the body.

c) the Consciousness interfaces directly with the whole physical environment (not just the body), manipulating it to cause the body to act autonomously, which is fed back to the brain to manifest as conscious thoughts within the brain, similar to b).

d) the physical body reacts to the environment in an autonomous fashion, feeding back to the brain what it is doing upon which the mind (within brain) processes these as decisions it is making, and the Consciousness simply observes this happening. Though as the environment is a creation of Consciousness (the consciousness mind) the whole thing is actually a creation of consciousness and as such perhaps there is no interface/ego/mind or even physical reality.... hmmm... maybe that's closer to what Ruby was saying about there being no ego, though perhaps the furthest of the possibilities from your own understanding Paul. πŸ˜‰

Can't think of any more possibilities at the minute, but will certainly ponder it some more with my logical hat on hehe!. πŸ™‚

This is what I perceive as the mind/body ego interface, if that goes wrong, then we can't function properly on a physical level, if you consider that all of the information that we are processing within consciousness is being fed straight into the brain, so that it is ready to react instantly to our thoughts, then when we overload our thinking aspect of consciousness (which is what I perceive the mind to be), then we also overload our physical brain which is monitoring and awaiting instructions.

I am not sure if that has cleared the water or given you a bump on the head, but think about it for a while, I am sure that it will unfold for you. πŸ™‚

As I said, your explanation is the logical one, but now I need to consider it in line with what has been determined by science, as that's another of the "religions" I keep an eye on. I was in the clear water then somebody threw in a rock... Bump on the head was perhaps the one in the end!

If we put a piece of tissue under a microscope, then if it is strong enough we will see the individual cells which make up the structure of the tissue, but just as all of the cells in the body have originated from one cell, so they are all one, our aspects of consciousness that we require to enable us to function as a human being, have all come form one consciousness, so they are all one.

We are all human beings who are made up of many parts (both physical and consciousness), put all of the parts together and that makes us whole as a human being, take away the physical human from the conscious being (like when someone dies) and we end up with one aspect of consciousness, everything else is only there to allow us to experience this life.

I hope that helps.

Now that bit IS clear. πŸ™‚

All Love and Reiki Hugs

Reply
Paul Crick
Posts: 4956
(@paul-crick_1611052763)
Famed Member
Joined: 19 years ago

Hi Giles

Well by your definition, thoughts create consciousness, so I guess I don't stop thinking hehe! πŸ˜‰

Not quite my way of thinking, to me thoughts are an expression of consciousness in action, our conscious thoughts are consciousness. πŸ˜‰

What's interesting to me though is, as you know, I also keep my eye on the science world too, and recent studies (a few years back now) seem to have found that a persons actions actually seem to start taking place a few seconds before any conscious thought about making that action.

You are thinking of consciousness as one consciousness again Giles, that is how we are in our natural state, but to function here we require several aspects of consciousness, the everyday thinking aspect of consciousness is the tip of the iceberg, in relation to a computer it is the equivalent of volatile memory, limited in capacity and one thought can easily replace the last thought.

You have to overcome the limitations that your thoughts surrounding the one consciouses are creating, all aspects of consciousness are separate aspects within our one consciousness, we have to perceive them in their own right and understand how each aspect functions in relation to the whole of our consciousness that we posess as a human being in order to put the whole picture together in a meaningful way.

Now we have our memory aspect of consciousness which is often described as our subconscious or unconscious mind which is a contradiction in terms, for if it was unconscious then it could not function within consciousness.

The memory aspect of consciousness works more like a hard drive, when we are learning anything new, it takes time in the beginning using our thinking mind or aspect of consciousness to navigate our way through the thought patterns and moves which will produce the desired outcome, but when we have been doing it for a while, then there is little everyday thinking aspect of consciousness used, for as soon as we start to think of doing it, the memory consciousness kicks in and performs the task.

The scientists are ignoring what they already profess to understand, when you want to type a word, you do not think, I will place my hands over the keyboard, select the first letter of the word and press it, then find the second letter and press that letter etc, what is happening is you are thinking the words you wish to display in your everyday mind/consciousness and your memory aspect of consciousness is performing the typing for you.

So engage yourself with your memory aspect of consciousness and perceive for yourself how it functions outside of your thinking aspect of consciousness, it is separate whilst at the same time being one aspect of your consciousness.

If it was not separate, then it could not argue with us and create an inner conflict, it takes two or more aspects of consciousness to create an argument. πŸ˜‰

The other aspect of consciousness which can produce this sort of scenario is our higher aspect of consciousness, this is often called our higher self or spirit, this is often perceived as something outside of self which just observes, but this is untrue, it is only because people have not engaged with it properly that they think that way.

This aspect is still linked to the oneness of consciousness, which you call the one consciousness, it perceives things in a completely different way to our everyday thinking aspect of consciousness, which is closely tied to this physical reality, it perceives danger before it happens, it is not restricted by the same physical limitations of time and distance that our everyday thinking aspect of consciousness is.

Now our ego or as I understand it our mind/body interface is a separate aspect of consciousness, below our ego we have our body aspect of consciousness, in that every cell within our body is one and within that oneness there is consciousness.

It is the cell consciousness which enacts the equation: Our general state of health and wellbeing is a direct reflection of our general state of consciousness. Our body is monitoring our core way of being aspect of consciousness and reflecting what it finds there.

This might sound like a complex way of understanding the way we function as human beings, but this is the understanding which allows us to perform transformational healing and personal development into all aspects of being, in a conscious and meaningful way; if we do not recognise and understand the different aspects of self, then we can't consciously treat them, we have to rely upon our higher aspect of consciousness to do the healing outside of our conscious understanding. πŸ™‚

Reply
Share: