"Egoism" stands between man and god.?

RE: "Egoism" stands between man and god.?

ORIGINAL: venetian

I'm totally inhibited now at writing anything to you on this, as nothing I write seems acceptable.

Venetian

Hi Venetian - well, that sounded like inharmony to me! You feeling inhibited about writing!! Golly!! 😀 I think this just shows why subjective adjectives about other members should be avoided at all costs (but at least no-one here has accused anyone of being more devious than those who kill others, like I was the other day!) 😉

I totally agree and understand what you mean about writing on the internet. I have a friend who is forever getting the wrong end of the stick when I write. I'm a terrible tease and he often takes me seriously (and he knows me!) It's got so with him that if I want to say anything profound, I'll always do it by phone and then there's no misunderstanding - because at least, on the phone, you can hear the intonation in someone's voice.

Anyway, at least as far as this thread goes, you have apologised for any misunderstanding, which is exactly the Venetian I know a little through HP! We have often disagreed on subjects, but it has never been an issue because there is respect and understanding between us, built up over years of dialogue!

Judy

RE: "Egoism" stands between man and god.?

ORIGINAL: Principled

well, that sounded like inharmony to me!

No, Judy, this is just "words" again I think and how we all use them differently. To me, "inharmony" means feeling emotionally challenged. I don't in this. ;)It was a simple statement about not knowing what to write next that wouldn't, it seems, be misunderstood again. To further a discussion people have to comprehend each other, and I just felt as though ... well, I've already written it, above. Things, I must say, seemed a bit 'touchy'. I don't know why.

That sounds like a heavy thread you mention. More devious than killing others? I don't recall seeing that!

On getting "the wrong end of the stick", did you read on HP - Sunanda and I discussed it - where the phrase comes from and what it originally meant? :D:D:D- it really is something you wouldn't want to do!

V

RE: "Egoism" stands between man and god.?

ORIGINAL: venetian

On getting "the wrong end of the stick", did you read on HP - Sunanda and I discussed it - where the phrase comes from and what it originally meant? :D:D:D - it really is something you wouldn't want to do!

V

I did read it, but had forgotten, so I went and had a look:

ORIGINAL: venetian

The original meaning. There were no toilet rolls, and even into Elizabethan times the same method was used. (We never seem to have used the Indian water in milk bottle method!) If, say, even in Shakespearean times, you needed a public loo, this would be a wooden box over the Thames with an obvious hole in it, and a stick with fabrics or feathers on one end which you - yuk, in common with others - dipped into the water and "used". Hence, picking up the 'wrong end of the stick'.

Oh dear. When I went to the Globe last year, I asked them what they did at the theatre and apparently, in the circle in the middle, it was just earth and everything was deposited there. Oh am I glad I live today and not then!

This also reminds me of back in the 60's and early 70's when the cabin crew hotel was facing Dubai harbour and there was a "thunder box" at the back of the dhows. One of our stewards used to take an air rifle with him (these were the days befor security) and used to sit at his window and do his target practice! [sm=rollaugh.gif]

Oops, I'd better stop or we'll get a [sm=nono.gif] [sm=offtopic.gif] [sm=nono.gif]

Sorry folks, I've downgraded a spiritual discussion, but at least I hope it's been lightened up a bit! 🙂

Love and peace,

Judy

RE: "Egoism" stands between man and god.?

I've plenty of stories along those lines, Judy, about being out East (not Anglia), and where do you go or how do you do things? But it's another thread, and maybe better not be? 😉

RE: "Egoism" stands between man and god.?

venetian, I certainly accept your cyber-handshake. Really there are no hard feelings at all. We both misunderstood each other to a certain degree but I went too far with it. I apologize for that. I realized that I projected some emotion into the situation that (obviously) had nothing to do with you. Your comments hit a nerve and while I wasn't exactly sure why I was feeling anything about it, I most certainly was. I sat and meditated on this today and realized I was holding onto something from a fairly recent experience that involved being misrepresented by a close friend to another. This lead to serious misunderstandings and feeling were hurt before we realized what had happened. There is a bit of a rift now between us and my projections carried this emotional weight with it. So thanks actually for indirectly helping me bring this to light. I didn't realize how deeply affected by this situation I am.

I also want to thank you Judy for the first quote "the mental arrow..." It got me thinking and helped me to uncover what was going on beneath the surface. Thanks to you both for lightening up the thread. It is easy to get caught up in our own drama sometimes.

As for our discussion. Here is an interesting passage from A Course in Miracles that might shed an intersting light on why we could not come to an understanding of each other's perspective about internal/external reality. Not that we couldn't understand each other thoroughly, but that we haven't, yet. I would be interested to hear any thoughts:

[color="#0000ff"]"The ego analyzes; the Holy Spirit accepts. The appreciation of wholeness comes only from acceptance, for to analyze means to break down or to separate out. The attempt to understand totality by breaking it down is clearly the characteristically contradictory approach of the ego to everything. The ego believes power, understanding and truth lie in separation, and to establish this belief it must attack. Unaware that the belief cannot be established, and obsessed with the conviction that separation is salvation, the ego attacks everything it perceives by breaking it into small, disconnected parts, without meaningful relationships and therefore without meaning. The ego will always substitute chaos for meaning, for if separation is salvation, harmony is a threat."

Perhaps by taking the perspective that we all have a truth that in some way can add to our own we can truly share ideas instead of putting them under the microscope?

~David

RE: "Egoism" stands between man and god.?

Hi erospirit David,

If the thread has helped you with a real-life situation then something of practical good as well as philosophising has come out of it, which is good news, what? Thanks for explaining. Gawd knows, I've posted on HP when out of sorts myself!

On your last line there, yes, of course there's always more truth to know (and we all must be in error over some beliefs or feelings - or our intellects, not inner Spirits, are).

I don't know about "lightening up the thread", but at least now, thanks to Judy, I know what happened in the Globe's ground-level circle, or one thing one can use air rifles for. 😮

The quote from ACIM. Hmm. I get its point but it doesn't quite fit in with how I see the make-up of a whole human being or what we are comprised of. I see a difference between intellect and ego. The intellect itself does as stated in your quote: it doesn't have totally holistic or Cosmic Consciousness and never can, so it can only work by analysis. That doesn't mean, to me, that it's doing anything wrong. (Working out a maths problem, for example, is clearly neutral and not 'wrong'.) I see the ego as something different, a trap the intellect, along with emotions, can fall into. The intellect can be used correctly or misused IMO. So intellect and ego are two different things; or you can have intellect without ego (or without much ego!).

Seeing the whole of something, or seeing everything without classification or analysis is something I don't think the intellect can do, but we can do it when wholly in the Spirit, or when our consciousness in within our Higher Selves. That's IMO. But it's rare and it isn't normal consciousness - it's what's sometimes called mysticism, mystical consciousness. Most of us either can't attain that, or can't maintain it anyway. So the best we can do is to control the intellect and keep it away from the pitfall of egocentricity.

This is expressed by allegory in the Bhagavad Gita: Krishna is the charioteer, and the chariot has four horses. One level of meaning to this, I believe, is that our True or Higher Selves are represented here as Krishna, and it's the right or duty of our Higher Selves to control the four aspects of being - the memory, the intellect or mind, the emotions, and the physical body. None of these four should be out of control - the Inner Self should have the reins for all four in hand. If it doesn't - that's ego expressed in one or more of those aspects of being.

So I'd agree with CIM about the Holy Spirit, but I have a problem with: "The attempt to understand totality by breaking it down ... " being wrong.To me it's the neutral intellect that does that as it's the best it (we) can do. I wouldn't beat myself up over it. ;)I don't see that neutral activity as being the big, bad wolf of the ego....

I don't know how anyone else sees it?

Venetian

RE: "Egoism" stands between man and god.?

Hi guys,

I haven't time to enter into this new direction just now, but I''m really pleased that you have been lifted out of the emotions erospirit and I just wanted to give both of you:

a great big hug!

[sm=grouphug.gif]

and here's one of these for both of you to:

[sm=1kis.gif] [sm=1kis.gif]

Love and peace,

Judy 🙂

RE: "Egoism" stands between man and god.?

Judy,

I was thinking in my mind's eye of that kind of smiley myself, but they seem more of a feminine thing to post? Or, if I seek to maintain machismo, maybe that's ego ... ;):eek:

Thanks,

V

RE: "Egoism" stands between man and god.?

Thanks Judy! I like the smiley too! I think I remember somewhere the idea that the spiritually realized person was an embodiment of the wisdom of the masculine and the love of the feminine (as aspects of our personalities). So no, this isn't more of a feminine thing to do but in my experience women tend to take care of relationships first and establish a commonality then tend to the details. It is a wonderful idea balance.

In the CIM example it suggests this balance by saying that meaning comes from relationship and that analysis breaks down these relationships. I think that you, venetian, summed this up pretty well:
[color="#0000ff"]
"Seeing the whole of something, or seeing everything without classification or analysis is something I don't think the intellect can do, but we can do it when wholly in the Spirit, or when our consciousness in within our Higher Selves. That's IMO."

[color="#000000"]I agree completely and feel this is the meaning of the passage. I don't see where analysis is inherently wrong, or the ego for that matter. It is much easier to lose sight of the whole when using our intellect and analytical mind to gain understanding. Something like not seeing the forest for the trees. However intellect does seem to analyze everything and this can be a very good thing as it often leads to greater understanding and insight. In our perceptual state of being the totality of the universe is anything but apparent but in our use of intellect we can reach a state of spiritual readiness. As you say it is when we raise our consciousness that we are wholly in the Spirit and are thus capable of illumination. I think this is how you meant it?

In my opinion I do not see the ego as something evil or bad. I think there is [color="#0000ff"][color="#000000"]a big difference between having an ego and egocentricity. The ego [color="#0000ff"][color="#000000"]is the unfortunate result of perceiving ourselves as lacking, or separate from each other and from God. It is [color="#0000ff"][color="#000000"]a thought system that promotes [color="#0000ff"][color="#000000"]and maintains this separation by offering us a view of creation that obscures its meaning to us. [color="#0000ff"][color="#000000"]I think the ego represents this lack of Knowledge. This is also why I suggest that the ego[color="#0000ff"][color="#000000"] existed in our minds before our incarnations (which is a means back to God realization). [color="#0000ff"][color="#000000"]This is what I meant earlier when I said that our entire spiritual progression is ego based. [color="#0000ff"][color="#000000"]Of course the existence of the ego is difficult to maintain prior to our birth, but it is suggested by our continuing incarnations until we are fully realized. [color="#0000ff"][color="#000000"]Those who know they are One with God have no need for this progression for they Know. [color="#0000ff"][color="#000000"]The ego cannot change our reality, it can only offer us an alternative viewpoint. If we accept it then it produces a state where the Spirit becomes the alternative. Sounds very much like the state of affairs on earth.

[color="#0000ff"][color="#000000"][color="#0000ff"][color="#000000"]Anyway, this begs the question: is our analytical tendency (intellect) derived from our limited mortal perspective, or is it an atttribute of the Spirit? Or is it an integral part of our Created Self that can be used for Light, or not? There is no doubt that it can be used to learn and grow into a greater spiritual awareness but the experiences of the spirit seem to be an appreciation fo the whole, however briefly attained or maintained, and not an intellectual experience.

~Peace

RE: "Egoism" stands between man and god.?

Hi erospirit,

You pose the question of whether the ego is inherently really bad or not. You know what I 'saw' as I read that? - and this just goes to show yet again the difficulty of limitation of language, at least on this subject. Look at your PC screen and imagine that it's a kind of diagram of the whole of human consciousness - at least the whole of it down here, and not what I'd call the Higher Self. I saw what I might call "ego" as a circle or ovoid on that screen. So it's just a portion of 'self'. The whole screen is self. Then what you are suggesting as being the ego as another ovoid half-overlapping mine, but apart as well. And I might also change my mind from one day to another about what I mean by 'ego', placing the ovoid or circle somewhere else on the screen! In other words, probably no two people mean precisely the same thing in using that same word. People are thinking often of different things and putting ego somewhere else on the screen of self.

So is ego wrong or to be overcome? It would depend on how we define it, seems to me. I was starting out from a definition along the lines of "Ego is that part of us which is imperfect and to be done away with" - so the conclusion from that definition is pretty obvious! But another definition like yours can be used ...

And you pose the question of whether the analytical intellect is a divine attribute. I can't claim originality here: what I've read and been taught, and which sounds right to me, is that the intellect is to mental matters what the body is to the physical life: intellect, emotions, memory, and body are all required (and therefore a divine gift) to function in those levels. It goes back to the Gita allegory: the Higher Self has four horses as its should-be servants, and one is mind. It's hard to imagine functioning without intellect.

Venetian

RE: "Egoism" stands between man and god.?

[color="#0000ff"][color="#000000"]Your PC screen analogy is a good one. I agree that no two definitions are the same because no two personalities are the same. I think fundamentally the ida of the ego remains the same but as we move about we do see it and ourselves differently. And as we evolve more towards our higher Self it becomes something entirely different; it becomes false in our direct experience.

Words do come across very differently! I actually agree 100% with the statement "Ego is that part of us which is imperfect and to be done away with". [color="#000000"]This is not because I think the ego is wrong but because it is untrue (false, unreal, illusion). A false precept and the resulting perception does not change our Spiritual Reality at all. We are not in danger because God created us, hence the ego can't really be bad. If its effects were permanent it would be devastating. But it is powerless to touch us except on the interpretive planes of existence (the material realm). I think Christ demonstrated this quite well. In his light I think that our purpose is not to master the ego but to master Love because Love is what we are. Love will drive the ego away.

I thought we would agree on intellect and we do. It would be difficult indeed to work without it! So from the ACIM example I take it to mean that when used by the ego the intellect divides but when in the service of the spirit it unites. Makes sense in my experience.

~David

RE: "Egoism" stands between man and god.?

Yes, 'A Course in Miracles' must mean ego-infested intellect in that passage you quoted.

I'd agree that the best method of dealing with ego or with anything that's "gotta go" is to expand the opposite, positive attribute, not struggle with the negative. I actually know a spiritual group that's large - hundreds or actually thousands of people - and they can spend up to half an hour a day doing affirmations which are negative affirmations towards their negative traits, if you follow. [:-]In other words, listing the negative traits and trying to affirm them away, rather than affirming positiveLove, say. Today I also came across a Hindu group who list the things they consider their bad habits, and 'punish' themselves by missing meals, etc., etc.,if the habits come out. IME that doesn't work: you may be affirming the banishment of something from you, but your focus is still upon it. Unhealthy too. Too close to the idea of 'sin', even if you just didn't get around to meditate today, or so forth.

On the ego being 'bad' or just wrong - yes, it's just a question of how one looks at it. Some would say that even Hitler was simply extremely maladjusted. But then others would use the word 'evil' and mean extremely maladjusted ... words again!

Words will find it even harder to explain this concept, but ultimately there can IMO be a merging of sorts between the analytical intellect and the Higher Self (by whatever name we know it). We might say then that the intellect gets raised into something higher too, or that it functions more holistically. Knowledge becomes Wisdom; charity become Love; mortal will-power becomes an effortless ability; the lower (imperfect) self is dissolved or sublimated. So maybe intellect and the Divine can commune, but I wouldn't know how to put that into written words.

Venetian

RE: "Egoism" stands between man and god.?

This by Sivanand also relates to ego:

Mere outward giving up of things is nothing. It is not real renunciation. Real tyaga or sanyas (renunciation) consists in absolute renunciation of all vasanas (tendencies) and the destruction of the heart-knot of ignorance, the cit-jada-granthi (confusion between the conscious subject and inert object).

What is to be renounced is the bheda buddhi (divisive intellect) which says, "I am superior to that man". "I am the body." And the kartrtva abhimana which thinks, "I am the doer".

RE: "Egoism" stands between man and god.?

Here's another Sivananda quote I just got. Obviously he and his followers really focussed upon the ego. Of course, many saints and sages have done so:

----------

Vedanta does not want you to renounce the world. It wants you to change your mental attitude and give up this false, illusory 'I-ness' and 'mine-ness'. The snake charmer removes only the two poisonous fangs of the cobra. The snake remains the same. It hisses, raises its hood and shows its fangs. In fact, it does everything as before. The snake charmer has changed his mental attitude towards the snake. He has a feeling now that it has no poisonous fangs. Even so, you must remove the two poisonous fangs of the mind, namely, 'I-ness' and 'mine-ness' only. Then you can allow the mind to go wherever it likes. Then you will always have the feeling of the presence of God.
You must also renounce the attachment to renunciation, which is very deeprooted.You must renounce the idea: "I have renounced everything; I am a great renunciate". This attachment of aspirants is a greater evil than that of the householders: "I am a landlord; I am a brahmana, etc".

RE: "Egoism" stands between man and god.?

venetian, I have also received the Sivananda dailys since you posted the link on HP. I also notice this one and thought it quite apoplicable to this discussion. The very idea of renouncing the world is a daunting task. The world is so vast, where do you stop? Trying to overcome limitation (as represented by the ego) by further limiting ourselves seems difficult at best. The examples that you gave of self-punishment is the same. Only the ego punishes because it is egotistical to think that anyone deserves anything but love. I wish anyone choosing the path of renunciation the best of luck. Fortunately for them if God is the goal they will be successful but it just might take them centuries of effort. No thanks!

The way I have come to understand it is that it is entirely within our ability to allow ourselves to be influenced by the Spirit and give up the idea that we can change ourselves. We simply do not know how ascend yet the ego in us has a hard time with humility and we struggle to make our own way in spite of ourselves. It takes great courage to put ourselves in the care of Spirit as it represents a total reliquishment of the ego. This leads to an experience of connectedness to God (hoever brief it may be) and that is expressed by our care for each other. This is the love that heals us all. This transcends the ego.

~David

RE: "Egoism" stands between man and god.?

Hi erospirit,

I've a lot of admiration for the Sivananda teachings, the little I've read of them so far. And each to their own. But I agree - though they would disagree, one assumes - that it's a long path. Or perhaps not suited to the modern Westerner. Being a monk or nun can just become another 'way of life'. It all depends on what's really going on within. And if there's a spiritual Fire lit within, then IMO you can live within that Fire whilst in the world (so long as you have daily practices that is, IMO).

All the same, spiritual retreats are superb, or can be, as spiritual "mountain top" experiences, and they energise you for the time back in the world again. So personally, I've never wanted to totally renounce the world like that forever, but at times I've oscillated in and out - into a retreat place and back out again. Works for me. 🙂

V

RE: "Egoism" stands between man and god.?

We've been discussing ego and the 'human nature', erospirit, I, and others. And we've been doing it sometimes from the stance that we are all inevitably, surely, falliblle creatures to some degree if only slightly so. That even if ego is there to be overcome, some traces of it must surely remain within us all?

I may as well come clean and say that I do not believe this is so. In fact, having ego is the spiritual equivalent IMHO of having cancer physically, or schizophenia psychologically. Common it may seem in the world we see around us, but ego - in the sense of having an identity outside of God / the One / Brahman - never needs to be. We can, I believe, retain our individuality (we don't disappear into a nebulous cloud of nirvana) yet still be All that God is.

One hesitates to make such statements as they appear almost impossible to be true. I've come to find that you can know it is true upon knowing people who have attained to such a state. I'd like to transcribe the words I have from one such person,given justa month ago,and there's noneed to say who this is. Nobody known to the public world. Here, I feel, we contact a consciousness that has long known an existence without ego. There's no sense of struggle in this person, but we ourselves do pick up a sense of what it is like to exist without any semblance of the bain of ego whatsoever.

I think it certainly pertains to the thread title.

--------------------

Knowing oneself as the Presence of God allows each one to surrender to that Divine Estate, not looking back into old ways or habits, but charting a new course filled to overflowing with all of the God Good that has been garnered through many lifetimes, all right action of thought, word and deed in the pursuit and the exploration of life.

As the inner heart begins to reveal more of its Divine nature, one begins to discover the true nature of God Life. For the so-called life that most of the Sons and Daughters of God are wont to experience is driven by human thought and feeling, by their own returning, untransmuted karma.

When you couple the art of karma-transmutation with the pursuit of right thought and right action, then you allow for the fullness of the release of the inner heart, you begin to experience more of your own Divine Estate that thinks with the Mind of God, that desires good for all life, that has no selfish intent impressed upon the energy-in-motion of one's being. That which is established by the purity of the inner heart builds in a creative endeavour all that carries that identity of the Mighty I AM Presence within it that cannot be denied, that will not be gainsaid, but will carry to completion the design of each creative endeavour.

When the inner heart is allowed to unfurl the fullness of the Presence throughout every endeavour of one's life, you know the pathway Home. You discover each successive hurdle that must be crossed, the next mountain that must be climbed, the next river that must be forged. And in that discovery, you finally know what must be attained in order to be God Victorious in the return Home. For all of life is like a gigantic puzzle with pieces that fit together seamlessly. But for this mosaic of life to convey to your outer consciousness the fullness of the image, the texture, the vibration that is your life, you must first put on the Seamless Garment of the Christ. And it is these varied pieces of life that make up that Garment when the vibration of the Holy Estate of one's being fits together every talent, every momentum that remains, so that one may make the ascent into the Heart of their own God Presence, nevermore to leave.

When there is the total lack of personal self-concern and only the pressure of the inner heart desiring to be more of the nature of

RE: "Egoism" stands between man and god.?

venetian, I see where you (and others) are coming from. There is safety in numbers they say:) (just teasing!). I found your quote to be quite beautiful. Too bad they remaned unnamed. The describe our pgression quite well. I do get something different out of it however. The one thing I can say is that there is a difference between the awareness of Spirit and being Spirit. Awareness is only readiness for ascension. Until we are all ready to ascend none of us can or has. Not completely anyway. It still involves different levels of ascension, a concept as opposed to Spirit as the ego is. I would understand this passage as a way to move through the progression but it says little of the end.

Instead of seeing the ego like a cancer I liken it to a nightmare that a child has. When the parent comes in and shows them the truth of what they feared they laugh their illusions away. So I also do not believe that the ego is permanent at all. It is a misperception and all that comes from it can be healed with correct awareness of who and what we are. But I do not think that we are capable of relinquishing it on our own nor do I believe that it can be complete on an individual level, only collectively. I see the enlightenment of the individual as only the first part of what I see as 3 steps to the process of our ascension.

1. Individual realization of what we are
2. Collective realization of who We are as a Whole (this involves a completion of step 1 for all facilitated by teaching).
3. Merging with God in Spirit

No matter how realized people seem to be if they call themselves complete while others falter they are still making the fundamental error of separation (unless healing occurs and the two are made equal in awareness). We are One and until that is shared completely the ego still exists in the mind of humanity. We cannot dissociate ourselves from what we see. If fully understood this means that as long as another remains asleep we are not complete. Percentages and majorities do not make truth only total consistency does. We can be without ego to certain degree but this world was based on the very concept the ego represents. However purified our perception may be it is still perception and involves a point of view that is separate from all others. Enlightenment is total and involves us all.

So while I talk of progression I can say that a remnant of the ego remains until God takes the last step for us. But this step will not be for any individual. It will be taken when we are all ready to go as One. Until then realization is incomplete and there is a need for learning. What we perceive is what we are. We cannot see unrealization in the minds of our brothers and sisters without being unrealized ourselves. Teachers are not done with their learning they are just beginning by taking on the responsibility of the preparation of the collective. This is how we all learn. We cannot be enlightened alone. That is egotistical. It is duality through and through. Only by lifting up others can we lift ourselves up. Christ's name is synonymous with sharing. Sharing is what makes something holy. Whether it be an idea, money, a piece of bread, or an experience, it is loving if it is shared. And this is what heals us of ego-mindedness.

I have learned to equate perception and scripture. The similarity is that both are shown by scientific and academic philosophy to be interpretations and so both can be taken literally, figuratively, and spiritually. The body is very convincing but it is not eternal and in the end (of time) it will cease to exist in any form (and so will it's domain). I think the most difficult idea for most people to grasp is what Spirit really is. While this concept involves the physical realm (spiritualized matter, etc) it is duality through and through. If Spirit is what we are then we must become like God in every way. Will we disappear? No. We will be as visible as God is.

~David

RE: "Egoism" stands between man and god.?

Hi erospirit,

I saw your post fairly soon after you posted it I think, but you'll notice that I could hardly answer it on the spot! These things are too deep for that. Now it's the quiet of late evening and most tasks are done, so ...

Yes, my likening ego to howphysical cancer is to the body ... it's not a great analogy actually, and I'm sure there are better ones.

ORIGINAL: erospirit

The one thing I can say is that there is a difference between the awareness of Spirit and being Spirit. Awareness is only readiness for ascension.

I certainly agree there. How easy it is to talk or to write of, say, spiritual things, yet the words are just intellectual knowledge, not the being of what is written about! It's so easy to read of these things, talk of them, attend courses, and even to think of them whilealone yet still not to be them whatsoever. (For example, the idea of being on a spiritual path, or of having 'reached a certain level' on that path.) I'm sure we all do that to some degree.

I'm reading a book on mindfulness Gurdjieff-style by Charles Tart. The idea of trying to be totally self-aware and aware of the senses at all times, to be awake in a vivid way and not to lapse into the robotic consciousness of just reacting to stimuli and not self-reflecting as the hours or even seconds go on. Early in this book- at the very beginning really - Tart cautions on how easy it would be to just read it as a book, while not practising mindfulness at all while reading it, or between sessions. It's the difference between being and just knowing, yes. (Tart has a nice trick: to help the reader stay awake, every several pages embedded into the text so that you don't see it coming he's written (without font-change or quotation marks) "the bell is ringing". It's right in the middle of sentences to remind the reader to pause a minute and ensure mindfulness is there: sensing the body, listening, and looking.

I digress. 😉

Until we are all ready to ascend none of us can or has. Not completely anyway.

This seems to be the main theme of your post above. I won't repeat it all as the post is right there to read, but there are thoughtful ideas such as:

I see the enlightenment of the individual as only the first part of what I see as 3 steps to the process of our ascension.

1. Individual realization of what we are
2. Collective realization of who We are as a Whole (this involves a completion of step 1 for all facilitated by teaching).
3. Merging with God in Spirit

No matter how realized people seem to be if they call themselves complete while others falter they are still making the fundamental error of separation

I do agree that however we view spiritual progression, it isn't done in a totally solo way. A very definition of spirituality, to me, would include (but not be limited to) altruism of the highest order.

But here's my view on whether we have to all (humanity? the universe?) do it all together, or whether we can and even should take major steps onward or upward alone.

Somebody who's taught me a lot has often said that it's a big mistake on the spiritual path to "wait" for even one other or to keep oneself in their level or space even because we really care for them and want to help them. The fact is that all have individual freedom, and we can't ever do for another what they haven't so far decided to do for themselves. We'll wait, and wait, and do ourselves no good. We might hold back a greater collective mission we should do with others.

Most people in the world hardly think at all about deep spiritual things, or their own rising. I know people for example who have been greatly held back spiritually for many years because they, in their hearts, desired a very devoted path in life, but were married to an utterly worldly spouse. Of course, if we are married, then naturally we at first hold to

RE: "Egoism" stands between man and god.?

Hey venetian, I agree with your post 100%. I must not have made myself totally clear about what I was thinking. I do not think that it would be wise to do wait for anyone and I think it would slow our collective progress immeasureably if we did so for any reason. We take long enough waiting for ourselves!

I think I can sum up my point by saying that since we were not created individually. This concept is only meaningful in time not in eternity. And so we must also return as One. This is the same as saying that we cannot merge with the Father until we are fully aware of ourselves. And that does include every aspect of our One-ness. But seriously this is a total tangent as this final step lies at the very end of time since it is an event taken by God Himself and is the final translation of time into eternity. Awareness and enlightenment is not being, it is an awareness of being and the conditions of (being). This is the realm of God and it represents the end of all inarnations, time, space, and separation of any kind, in any form and so sits at the end of the temporal sequence when this world will cease to seem to be. This is beyond what we can really discuss and can only be communicated through Divine Revelation from God to us individually.

But we have to open the direct channels of communication with each other first. And this will take time. To love our neighbor as we love ourselves is our task in time. When this is complete God becomes attainable and as we were created so will be join creation. This is not an individual endeavor.

Steps 1 and 2 are our only concern. And our task (and the accomplishments of all spiritually progressed individuals) is only to recognize the Creation for what it is. This is the recognition that we are all One and this can only lead to helpfulness and healing. Our goal of personal enlightenment is necessary first because the unhealed healer spreads confusion not clarity. If we waited for the rest of the world we would indeed waste our time. Each one that wakes opens up a part of everyone's mind to the truth.

I only have one point of confusion. I am not sure what is meant by Jesus physically ascending to God? This seems to involve either two different opposing orders of reality or it suggests that God is somehow physical? I personally don't believe that God partakes in the duality but others might.
Getting to some of the other details in your post I have to say that a spiritually uninterested spouse can make things difficult but it can hardly stop a determined mind. Look at Jesus. The whole world was either against him or trying to understand him and mostly in vain. His only support was the Father. It is a great example and shows that we really have it pretty good in comparison. So what if we allow others to shatter our peace? I guess get away from them if it is necessary. Truth is there is no reason we can devise that can stop the truth from lighting up our minds if we truly desire it. The Spirit of God does not wait on illusions only on our willingness. The very thought of preparing ourselves for God is an ego based thought that suggests that we know how to do that. We really need to do nothing at all, at least for a moment.

You final paragraph of the last post sums it all up pretty well. It is a collective ascension that we are on. Some rise to the heights of their potential and assist us to get there. We will all do the same at some point in time. In fact we all do this regardless of are conscious intent. Example is very powerful and we all live our beliefs and teach constantly. So we are all bringing each other up all the time.

~David

RE: "Egoism" stands between man and god.?

Hello guys!

I was going to chip in when you were on intellectualism, but I barely have time to read the threads these days, let alone reply to them. There have been some really profound observations and quotes here – thank you both. However today I have decided to make time, as I just wanted to share some more passages from Mary Baker Eddy relevant to this discussion.

It’s part of the belief of duality (or egoism!) to think that we somehow have to struggle (or go through several lifetimes) to reach perfection, when in fact, it’s here and now. I love this first one, more in the relative, than the absolute, like the third:

Man understands spiritual existence in proportion as his treasures of Truth and Love are enlarged. Mortals must gravitate Godward, their affections and aims grow spiritual,--they must near the broader interpretations of being, and gain some proper sense of the infinite,--in order that sin and mortality may be put off.
This scientific sense of being, forsaking matter for Spirit, by no means suggests man's absorption into Deity and the loss of his identity, but confers upon man enlarged individuality, a wider sphere of thought and action, a more expansive love, a higher and more permanent peace.
(Science and Health p 265)

This one I feel is very deep. I have highlighted two bits. When she uses the term Mind with a capital M, she means GOd, the one universal, divine Mind, which is the real Mind of all of us.

Jesus taught us to walk over, not []iinto or with, the currents of matter, or mortal mind. His teachings beard the lions in their dens. He turned the water into wine, he commanded the winds, he healed the sick,--all in direct opposition to human philosophy and so-called natural science. He annulled the laws of matter, showing them to be laws of mortal mind, not of God. He showed the need of changing this mind and its abortive laws. He demanded a change of consciousness and evidence, and effected this change through the higher laws of God.
…………….Jesus required neither cycles of time nor thought in order to mature fitness for perfection and its possibilities. He said that the kingdom of heaven is here, and is included in Mind; that while ye say, There are yet four months, and then cometh the harvest, I say, Look up, not down, for your fields are already white for the harvest; and gather the harvest by mental, not material processes.
(Unity of Good p 11)

Man is the idea of Spirit; he reflects the beatific presence, illuming the universe with light. Man is deathless, spiritual. He is above sin or frailty. He does not cross the barriers of time into the vast forever of Life, but he coexists with God and the universe. (Science and Health p 266)

Love and peace,

Judy

RE: "Egoism" stands between man and god.?

Oh, Judy -

You have no idea how timely your post is! 😀

BTW, I would rarely attempt to reply to the other David when I only have a few minutes free, so I'm not doing that here- but not that I mean I ever reply to you, Judy, superficially. 😀

Today I had a small piece published in a magazine, and it was on exactly the kind of thing you have posted about, so it's all much on my mind. As you know,I have much respect for Mary Baker Eddy and her writings, too, so I respect your quotes.

The piece I had published is about "manifesting" something; but I wrote it months ago and I now realise that anyone can "manifest" through the use of thought and feeling, visualisation, etc. What is really important in such work is motive. [ If you are interested in my thoughts on this, they are in my review here on HP of "The Secret" under 'Reviews'. ] [link= http://www.healthypages.net/forum/tm.asp?m=377933 ]http://www.healthypages.net/forum/tm.asp?m=377933[/link]

Thanks so much for high-lighting some passages. You know, we all have our own passages that leap out to us, and to me what leapt out was this, from your quote:

He annulled the laws of matter, showing them to be laws of mortal mind, not of God.

-----------
V xxx
edit to add link.

RE: "Egoism" stands between man and god.?

ORIGINAL: venetian

Thanks so much for high-lighting some passages. You know, we all have our own passages that leap out to us, and to me what leapt out was this, from your quote:

He annulled the laws of matter, showing them to be laws of mortal mind, not of God.

V xxx

Hi V,

So glad you've found the words above helpful. It's funny, because your quote wouldn't have stood out to me as it's one of the basics of Christian Science healing and what is in our thought all the time.

Wow, I just read your words on the secret - you are just so spot on. I haven't seen this film/video, but have a feeling it's what a lovely HP friend sent me just last week, bless her. Here's a bit:

The following 1Hr 30mins will bring an ABUNDANCE of HEALTH, WEALTH and HAPPINESS into your lives IMMEDIATELY ... I PROMISE YOU THAT!

This included a link to a Larry King video about thescienceofgettingrich.

The science of getting rich?????????? That rings alarm bells in my head!! Totally, totally the wrong motive. Even if I had broadband I would be resitant to seeing it.

I always remember being deeply impressed reading about a husband who contacted a CS practitioner for his wife who was terminally ill. He said to her "If my wife has a healing, I will join the church and become the best Christian Scienitst in the world" and the prac replied. "Don't say that. If this is the truth, you want it whether your wife is healed or not. And if it isn't the truth, you don't want it, even if your wife is healed." (She was by the way)

Some people reading this will be puzzled as to its significance to what you've written about The Secret, but I know that both you and David will understand.

Jesus certainly demonstrated abundance to meet a specific need - loaves and fishes, the coin in the fishes mouth, the nets breaking with the weight of fishes (all a bit fishy?? 😉 ) but his motives were never greed. In fact, he gave us the recipe for supply: "But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you." (Matt 6:25-34)

Still, if something is "accentuating the positive" it's got to be better than the normal opposite thinking! I was horrified hearing of another man who had been poisoned (apparently at the same time) by this strange radiation business, who was perfectly well, being told by his doctor that he would definitely die. If only people realised how powerful mental suggestions are they would be so careful about what they say and what they take in.

To my understanding, it's only when we can leave the mortal basis of belief (the human ego) and unite with the one Mind, God that everything will move into harmony with the reality of Being and that reality includes infinite supply!

Love and peace,

Judy

RE: "Egoism" stands between man and god.?

Hi erospirit,

In reply to your last post, in which you open by saying you agree 100% - I agree with your post 100%. Not much more to say on that, therefore! ;)I see what you meant now: your idea of all having to reach the One together is along the lines of the Hindu pralaya, or 'Day of Brahman': it takes eons to accomplish, but periodically all consciousnesses and all matter merges back into a non-physical, timeless Oneness, thence to somehow, as a Mystery, emerge again after more eons. Whatever! It's hard to conceive of intellectually.

On the Ascension, it could be another thread and I feel would confuse this one?

Yes, the unhealed healer isn't going to be a great deal of good to others, and can sometimes make things worse (such as false or very flawed spiritual teachers).

On spouses, or relationships, or friends or people or anyone and the world around us, it's hard and dodgy to have one-track solutions, since we all differ and how well we can deal with things, and may each differ from year to year, and no two situations are alike. (I've seen very strange couples who were seemingly headed in totally opposite directions make a go of it, and also I've seen people who just had to 'get away' in order to continue their Path.)

V