Consiousness

G

Gucke

Member
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I am trying to expand my consciousness through various Teachings, including those of Ekhart Tolle, Samael Aun Weor, and Krishnamurti.

But I spilled "the cup of Hermes" and according to Samael Aun Weor(and my own experience) much of the ego returns.Perhaps I hold on too much to this belief system.

I guess what i am asking is: what is the best way to kill the ego and attain Enlightenment from the point of view of any Tradition, but I would like to hear from those who follow Master Samael Aun Weor.
 
The problem with following any spiritual "path" is that you can get painted into a corner so very quickly and without relief. The ego is simply a thought, nothing more. In order to "kill" the ego it must first be reified in some way. Many spiritual groups have done this.
I was thinking the other day while my dog and I were traversing a narrow mountain trail that a "path" cannot exist by itself. In fact there really is no such thing as a path in and of itself. There is gravel and soil, rock and plants, mountains and hills. when conditions are right we say there is a path but no one part can be a path, not without all the other things that go into its "pathness"

Awareness always is, it needs no expansion. The attempts by seekers to become something they are not already, is ironically, a function of ego.
Sit quietly and pay attention, then all this makes perfect sense. For how can something you can observe be who you are? Will the object ever become the subject? No. There is something else, something that defies description because it is beyond subject and object.
 
Eckardt Tolle indicates we can never seek enlightenment in the future.

as enlightenment can only happen now.



The Dalai Lama says that you know you are enlightened when everyone you see, you see as enlightened...

My preacher suggests we take a walk to the mall to see how far we have to go.
 
Zen Buddhism works pretty good for that.
It is all about getting the person out of their mind so they can obtain a broader perspective.
Subjectivity makes a terrible filter for reality.
Everything becomes biased.
 
Hello,

The best teaching that I found is the one of Master Samael Aun Weor.

You cannot eliminate something that you do not know what it is, and how it works.
You have to understand the mechanics of your own thoughts, it asks a lot of attention interior, reflexions, and meditations.



But the mental cannot eliminate the mental, it is necessary to call our Mother Divine particular. She has the power to do it, but it is useless that she eliminates what you did not understand and what you will recreate unconsciously)



What I advise you, it is to get the strenght to eliminate a defect of your psychology.
Understands it completely and begs your Father to understand it and begs to your Mother to eliminate the part of this defect which you understand.

Request them to show you this default and his elimination in the internal worlds. So you will have the faith and you will not leave in the labyrinth of theories.



Patrice
 
Hi Gucke. Could you please define "ego"? That would help in terms of discussing techniques and what you mean by "killing it."

For me, "ego" means the misapprehension that these collected parts somehow make a real, solid, actually existing entity called "me." The antidote is to look for this "me" very carefully and to see if any true "me-ness" can be found. The Buddhist teachings seem to say that the ego does not die because it never existed to begin with. What does die is our wrong view...
 
Excellent thread! :)

Gucke, I know very little of the teachings of Samael Aun Weor, and though I do have a respect and admiration for Krishnamurti, I am also of the mind that he stepped off of the Path after about 1926.

The Path, I have found, however well beaten and traveled ahead of us, is not for the faint of heart, or for those who are merely *curious*.

And the ego, while a necessary vehicle for the Soul to manifest at an earlier stage of our human journey, is definitely an obstacle for most of us at this stage. I can say `this,' like this, because anyone interested enough to be reading and posting on this thread ... or probably at Interfaith.org ... almost certainly fits into this *category* ... but enough about that! ;)

In the esoteric tradition familiar to me ~ the Ageless Wisdom, Theosophy, modern Gnosis both East and West, etc. ~ the terminology for describing the problems of ego include several useful concepts. These I continue to Ponder.

One term, which comes up again and again in the teachings of Alice Bailey, is `Ahamkara.' This refers to the necessary, yet temporary and essentially delusional (existentially speaking) principle of consciousness which we call `I.' The word apparently means, literally, "I-maker."

Were it not for this principle, you could not start this thread, we could not read it, and no one could reply. In short, there would be no one to post, read or reply, or at least, none of us would be aware, or care. {From another point of view, there would only be the One of us that there is anyway ... but that's way beyond me, so we have to skip it for the moment.} The Ahamkaric principle, then, is intricately bound up with why our Souls are here, incarnating on this planet, expressing through a lower quaternary to begin with.

Then there is a term which many Theosophists will recognize: sakkayaditthi. This is another Sanskrit word meaning `delusion of self.' In a listing of several fetters which every Steam-Entrant must "cast off" before passing on to the next stage of the Path, sakkayaditthi is listed first, and is considered the most heinous, grievous, or difficult. It is what allows me to say, "YOU AND I ARE DIFFERENT." It is also what allows me to say, "I AM I, YOU ARE YOU, SHE IS SHE, etc."

Embrace, even theoretically, that on ANY LEVEL this is a delusion, even if it is a necessary delusion for many thousands of incarnations ... and immediately you have opened the door of possibility of Enlightenment and Moksha. Laugh in the face of the Wisdom of the Buddhas ... and enjoy another few whirls around the wheel!

In the teachings of Alice Bailey the term that comes up in reference to this problem of ego is ... `the dire heresy of separateness.' If you look this up, you will find that the Teacher mentions it again and again and again, with precisely these words. It is considered one of the greatest obstacles to spiritual progress, and ~ sooner or later ~ we must all confront it. It will stop many of us in our tracks. And until we come to certain revelations and are willing to relinquish this sort of self-cherishing, we will go no further.

So the term `Dweller on the Threshold,' also familiar from the earliest days of modern Theosophical revival (1860s+) ... is also well known to a lot of students. And of course, this is not meant to signify a vague, inchoate mass, an ill-formed idea or philosophical fancy, etc. It has a definite, precise connotation, even if this naturally varies from student to student.

But of course, energy follows thought! And therefore, the more I contemplate the Dweller, or consider my particular predicament, and wonder what I can do to combat this menace ... ahhh, but I have already missed the point! :p

Yet, what utter foolishness to toss such concepts aside, and simply say, ahh, the shoe does not fit.

To this I would say, "Well, friend, you may not feel like putting it on NOW, but sooner or later you will need to learn to walk a mile ... and so I've heard, it's a long, loooooooooooooooong way hOMe." :eek:

So, as a beautiful woman said to me a few years ago, after we'd discussed Anthroposophy a bit ... it does, indeed, seem like we're in "ONE BIG BOAT," doesn't it! ;)

And we are. Because there is GROUP ego [personality], as well as GROUP Soul ... and Group Consciousness as well as all this individual nonsense that we keep pretending is individual (my thoughts, your thoughts, my feelings, your feelings ... OH what NONSENSE!)

My recommendation? Why not consider a small portion of the Wisdom which has come down to us from pre-Buddhistic times?

In the introduction to The Voice of the Silence, H.P. Blavatsky quotes Krishna-Christos, the "Higher Self" from the `Song of the Lord' on this subject:
"Sages do not grieve for the living nor the dead. Never did I not exist, nor you, nor these rulers of men; nor will any one of us ever hereafter cease to be." (Bhagavatgita II. 27).
Click to expand...

Relating specifically to the subject of the Path, and what we must do to tread it, and to remain its steadfast adherents, you might consider especially Fragment III, The Seven Portals. And more generally, all three sections of this work, since it is not very long in total.

The Sanskrit terminology may be difficult for some, but it is explained at the end in a glossary. Personally, I consider the translation beautifully clear and pristine ... but then, I do not expect to have Mastered the subject ~ for several lifetimes.

And I do not dread this; I look forward to it. We are here for a reason, and a Purpose. One thing I know well, and by heart: If you fall off the horse, GET BACK ON IT, no matter how hard it is, how long it takes, and no matter what the jeering crowd has to say about it.

I know full well what vicious struggle awaits. St. Michael alone ... will see it through to its end. And from one perspective, that is all ~ that any of us need to know.

~~

So I'm off to have a Red Stripe ... ya'll take care.

Namaskar,
Andrew/Taijasi
 
I think the best approach is not to think anything ought to be killed or thrown away. One of my teachers pointed out that when we treat parts of ourselves as something that ought to be killed or thrown away, we have a tendency to treat other beings like this also. Instead, we have to focus on healing that which is awry. One focuses on understanding oneself in all ways, looking honestly and critically at one's patterns in thought and feeling and our broken, dysfunctional relationship with the powerful forces within ourselves such as pride and passion. Then, we get to work on healing through remembering that which we really are (which, in my opinion, is nothing eternally distinctive at all).

Buddhism is great for this also...

As we begin to see our impermanence and interbeing, it is not that we "kill" the ego (as it never really existed) so much as we come to understand what we really are. In my belief system, what we really are is an extension of the Divine. We are process, not any "thing." Our impermanence and constant change, our interdependence... all points toward the lasting process of relationship that we are. We aren't beings having relationships. We are relationship unfolding into beings.

It is through commitment to healing and integrating all parts of ourselves, and reaching out to ourselves and other beings in love and compassion, that yield spiritual development.

In short... I don't seek to kill the ego. I seek to remember myself- to remember being the process of Divine unfolding. If I am in this state, then I look out upon the Divine through divine eyes and I cannot possibly exist in a "me vs. other" consciousness, for "me" and "other" are part of one flowing force.
 
Gucke said:
I guess what i am asking is: what is the best way to kill the ego and attain Enlightenment from the point of view of any Tradition, but I would like to hear from those who follow Master Samael Aun Weor.
Click to expand...

From a Buddhist standpoint I'd say give it 100,000 (give or take a factor of 100,000) lifetimes of practice.

Don't worry. The time will seem to fly by.
 
I plead guilty to not understanding most of this post. The words are exotic. I do not criticise what I do not understand. I will follow the thread without further postiing.

Amergin
 
Amergin,

I am glad to see your interest in this topic. Think of it this way: We presetnly have two ways of looking at something, one is in an emotional way and the other is in an intellectual way. Most people would agree that thinking in an intellectual way is a higher level of consciousness than an emotional way. The main idea of this thread is to say that there is a form of consciousness that is even higher than the intellect. According to the theory, we must try to stop being conscious on the intellectual level and strive to become conscious at the next higher level.
 
There are two kinds of knowledge and the kind that most people have is from the world. This knowledge is the result of deceived thoughts caused by the genetic sins of the flesh. The other kind of knowledge comes directly from God but almost impossible to attain because it requires God to remove the sins of the flesh so this knowledge can be known by the new sinless saint. The knowledge of the world can't understand the knowledge of God, which is the truth.
　
The only people who received this knowledge of God during this age were Jesus and us saints. There are others who didn't receive it but only because they couldn't be made sinless. These people were the prophets who received faith from God to speak for him but without the knowledge they couldn't learn that this knowledge, which is who they were. They died as sinners before Jesus could sacrifice his flesh for their sins and that's why they didn't receive the knowledge.
　
We saints and Jesus learned we were created together with the prophets to be like God and have all his knowledge. We actually are the knowledge because God is where all thoughts originated. We were made to speak for him so this is why we needed all his knowledge, which is all the thoughts of God.
　
Everybody else were created as thoughts within this knowledge of ours but in order to experience these thoughts, we need a body that has a brain to process them. All of us were born with genetic sins in our flesh except Jesus because Jesus needed to have the knowledge to preach the first gospel, which is known as the gospel of Jesus Christ.
　
Any sinner who listened to this gospel would be given faith so they could be delivered from their sins and into this knowledge of God. There are many names for this living knowledge such as the Word, Eternal Life, Holy Spirit, Kingdom of God, Heaven, Counselor, etc. A saint is the flesh of a man who becomes obedient to this knowledge and speaks for him through the gospel, also known as the voice of God.
　
As a sinless saint, I speak the words given to me by this knowledge, who is God and the Word who gives power to them. Saints don't need the Bible or any of the world's knowledge unless God needs something for our vocabulary. Then he guides us to the information to read so it enters our memory. From there, he will use this information to inspire the words he has us write and speak. This way, I always speak the truth of God, which comes directly from the knowledge we're created with.
　
Religions are all built using worldly knowledge that doesn't understand the words that came from the knowledge of God. This is one reason why sinners changed the words in the scriptures so they could understand God's knowledge a little better. The new testament was changed a lot with pagan beliefs added to them. This is why Christians understand the new testament better than the old testament. The new testament is mostly worldly knowledge for them to believe in.

When the gospel is preached to the worldly minded, they simply reject it because they can't understand the truth of the knowledge of God. It causes them great fear and their sin of pride produces power to deceive their thoughts they were created with. This deception keeps them from knowing the truth, which is God's knowledge. This is why they go to the knowledge of the world to comfort them. Their religious teachings are of the world's knowledge and not from God.
　
God's knowledge is reserved for those of us who obey his spoken Word. Without obedience to the Word and becoming a sinless saints, you will have to settle for what you have in this age until you die. When you wake up in a new immortal body, you will get a portion of the knowledge of God but not in the capacity as the former prophets, Jesus and us saints. We will have full knowledge in God and the rest of you will have enough to live your lives for the rest of eternity. The portion of knowledge you are created with will be enough love for the rest of your lives because the love of God is knowledge.
 
"The only people who received this knowledge of God during this age were Jesus and us saints."

--> Such an idea does not fit into my belief system.
 
I've enjoyed reading these responses. So the Ego is a higher self than mind or emotion? It is quite interesting if this concept appears in such diverse religions. I will contribute a few of Christian verses that hopefully will find themselves useful, OK? Like I said above, its very interesting that the same ideas appear across multiple religions. You will enjoy these passages which I have commented on.

1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

I Cor 8:2 And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. 3 But if any man love God, the same is known of him.

II Cor 4:6-7 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.
Click to expand...
The first verse is about humbly admitting our faulty knowledge. It comes from someone talking about light and dark being as analogous to knowledge and ignorance but speaking of a higher concept of either one. (I have received some disagreement about my opinion on this from Netti Netti, however I persist in my point of view. Netti Netti always made very good posts, so I thought I'd mention her disagreement as significant.) If you read it in context, God is the source of knowledge and not us. If we say we have no sin -- that is if we say we have perfected knowledge than it is evidence that we are self-deceived. Many people are afraid to deal with this verse, because they have spent so much time building upon their egos. I think building upon the ego might be similar to when Jesus talks about building a house upon sand instead of rock. In his parable he says those that 'Build their house upon shifting sand' are the ones who boast to him "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?" (See Matthew 7 for the parable) Each one when speaking should admit that there is fault in anything that they say, or else they are claiming to have no sin which is a sign of self deception.

The second verse quoted is part of an answer to a question about idolatry, which is an important question for Christians though you may be unfamiliar. The point is that knowledge is never perfected in an individual Christian. This also can be applied to what you are saying about transcending the ego. Considering ones own knowledge to be perfect is much worse idolatry than eating food sacrificed to idols.

The third verse is very similar. Our knowledge is relatively darkness compared to the greater substance that is the light of God. Similarly, we are clay and the greater substance is like treasure relatively. This is the same as Jesus' idea of sand for a foundation vs. rock for a foundation and may be talking about transcending ego. The passage alludes to the Bible story about Gideon, in which clay jars with burning torches hidden inside are broken. The point is we can focus upon our own knowledge, but it is only clay. We must 'Break' the clay in order for the torches to be seen, which is to say we must not boast of our own knowledge.
 
China,

Many of us have reached a point in our spiritual evolution where we need to start learning how to live without an ego. This is similar to a child who finally learns to ride his or her bicycle without training wheels -- the training wheels should be removed, and the child may find another use for them, as you suggest. But this should not distract the child from realizing that the training wheels are no longer necessary, and further use of them on the bike prevents further maturing.
 
i think that's bunkum. You can strive all you like, but you will still have an ego. In fact, I reckon, personally, that attempting to destroy your own ego is in itself an egoic act, and one doomed to failure. For, what is man without an ego? He is a sheep, a dog, a puppet, an empty nobody. Ego, or, "having a sense of self" is not a bad thing, the ego should not be maligned. What purpose does it serve?
 
I'll take your word for it Nick. It's hard for me to wrap my mind around the idea of ego-less existence. I don't know how you would create without a sense of personal differentiation. Perhaps I'm not very enlightened.

Chris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top