CONVERSATIONS WITH EGO

Mike: That’s it! I’ve had it with you! I want nothing more to do with your sheit!

ego: Gosh, Mike, what could be the problem?

Mike: You know darn well what the problem is! Every time I write a post, you tell me “this is it! this is the one that’s gonna trip out the entire world and everybody will think you’re a genius.” You get me all friggin’ hyped up, only to realize that nobody reads it. Nobody’s interested. It’s a flop!

I’m sick and tired of this roller coaster ride you’ve been takin’ me on my whole damn life. My whole life you have consistently jacked me up, only to crash every time. I can't be happy listenin' to you and doing what you say.

So, from now on, we’re through. I’m done with you! From now on you need to stay out of my life!

ego: But, Mike, I can’t stay out of your life….I’m you.

Mike: Whaaa!?…..well…I guess that’s true. But it doesn’t matter… because I’m on a spiritual path to enlightenment. Ya know what that means, don’t ya? It means your done. Finished! Because once I awaken to enlightenment your gone, dude. Your days are numbered. That’s what “enlightenment” means… NO MORE EGO! No more you.

ego: That’s fine, but if your going on a spiritual path to enlightenment, then, unfortunately, I’m gonna have to come with you. At least until you get where you’re going. You do understand that, right?

Mike: Well…fine! I suppose you do have to tag along, at least until I get my enlightenment. But just stay outa my way, do you hear! I can’t have you buttin’ in while I’m trying to become an enlightened master. This is a spiritual path I’m on, not an ego trip.

ego: OK. But since I have to be here... maybe I can help?

Mike: Help? You’ve been no help so far, so I can’t see what you could do to help me get enlightened. How could you possibly help?

ego: Well, I could help you find the right books to read, the right groups to join and I could even assist in finding the best guru. I could even help you schedule your spiritual practices around the rest of your life and remind you when you’re thinking too much and not meditating correctly.

You got to admit, we have learned a lot along the way and it seems a shame to trash it all now. Besides, you still need me to do other things like make money, enjoy sex, justify your anger when others piss you off, make it seem like your intelligent when you’re not, show you what to get serious about and what to ignore…

You’ve got to admit that I have helped you many times in negotiating that cold, cruel world out there. In fact, what would you be without ME to protect YOU?

Admit it…you know you love me.

Mike: Well…ok… I guess you can help sometimes. But I’ll let you know when I need your help so don’t be buttin’ in when I don’t need you.

ego: Ok, you got it, buddy! I’ll only take direction from you. Otherwise, I’ll be as quiet as a mouse. Oh, this spiritual enlightenment will be such fun!

More Spiritual Ego Blathering (mine and theirs)

So if reality is nothing more than a conceptual fantasy conjured up in the individual and collective mind, why does it really suck at times? I mean, why can’t you simply conceptualize into consciousness pure unadulterated bliss? Why shouldn’t you be able to conceptualize eternal fame and fortune?

Well, the problem begins with the concept we refer to, and idolize, as “ego.” The ego was manufactured mentally to give you a sense of “sefldom” or a ‘sovereignty’ over all you survey. Actually, that’s not really a problem. The real problem is that to be an ego requires that there be other egos all living in your sovereign ‘world.” Because, let’s face it, if there were no other egos living in the world, who and what would you assert your ego against in order to confirm your ego even exists and, make no mistake, egos NEED to exist (as opposed to the BEING of mind).

This tends to diminish your sovereignty, since there must be other egos for which to accentuate and assert your ego (attain recognition) and those egos are doing the same asserting and that sucks for “you.” This results in all manner of competitive ego games. The most absurd being the "awakening game" in which those who proclaim winning an ego game assert that they have, in fact, overcome their ego. They are blissfully egoless and thus, they are winners. But, note that they cannot claim themselves as winning and require others to make such a proclamation. Thus, I could easily assert that I am an 'Enlightened Egoless Master' but unless I get a few thousand (or million) to agree with me, my assertion would be as credible as proclaiming Donald Duck an "enlightened master."

Even though all games are all simply conceptualized in consciousness, nonetheless, ego has informed the mind that this all is so very real and the mind then conceptualizes some serious stuff, like death, war, disease, religion, government, spiritual practices, etc, etc. You see, the mind is innocent and always has been since it does retain a timeless quality. Yet, in its manufacture of an ego, the mind then sentenced itself to a life of guilt by oonceptualizing space/time. This negated perfect equality thereby arranging 'levels and 'degrees' in space/time. levels and degress denote dualism and now we have all kinds of inequality.

So why did the mind make the ego in the first place?

Well, here we’re entering into the game of non-conceptuality and that’s an infinite game. I suppose the best way to put it, is that the timeless mind NEVER made the ego in time because for it, time doesn't even exist and, thus, the ego doesn’t exist either. Now this is some pretty enlightening sheit… for someone who is not ruled by an ego. For an ego, it is simply hilarious! (do you hear your ego laughing).

You see the ego doesn’t know why the mind made it (in it’s dream of complete sovereignty, it believes it made itself!) and really doesn’t care for that matter. What it does care about is that the mind never find out why the ego exists, because if it did learn why the ego exists, then the mind may not want it anymore. That’s a frightening concept for the ego to consider and, therefore, it strives to insure that you do NOT consider it. Thus, we have so many finite games to play for distraction.

'Why' is an infinite game that has no outcome and egos would rather not play games they cannot win. They prefer more worldly finite games in which they can win prizes and stuff. Just look around you at your world and you will clearly see egos asserting themselves in winning finite games. Not to win would indicate a diminished ego and a diminished ego is tantamount to a dead one. Since the ego demands existence, any sense of diminishing return is evaluated as a threat to survival. This is why we have so many depressed people in the world, who have eventually come to evaluate their egos as losing in the finite games the world plays.

Ego finite games are very serious biz! Obviously, if the games were not taken seriously, then the ego would not play because the ego's only reason for existing is simply to assert itself against other egos. It has absolutely no other purpose than to magnify itself and it requires that everyone participate in its magnification. Because if everyone did not participate, who would declare it a winner?

In fact, some egos are very cunning and actually assert themselves in a game called spiritual humility. The object of this game is for the ego to present itself as making great sacrifices for others, while reaping subtle rewards for itself, as in "gee, you're so 'selfless'!" You will find this rule in many religious and spiritual games.

Of course, for the ego to play these sorts of games requires other egos to play as well and to play by the rules as agreed on. Not all egos can win in all games, but there are so many finite games to be played, the ego almost always finds some game to win at.

However, as I stated above, the mind manufactures an ego and the ego requires the mind never understand why. It seems that before time (or the concept of “time”) the mind was completely centered and focused on what I like to call Deep Spirit (others call it that too). Its called Deep Spirit because the mind has become almost completely distracted by the ego, thus, leaving Spirit to recede deep into the background, whereas before, the mind’s attention was blissfully consumed by this Spirit and nothing else.

This is why all “awakening” games tend to be co-opted by ego, because the very idea of retrieving or renewing correspondence with Deep Spirit is frightening to the ego. So the ego takes control of that game and we wind up with all kinds of crazy gurus and hip modern masters like Osho, and Adi Da, Andrew Cohen, Ken Wilber, etc, etc.

The objective of the ego’s spiritual game for many is to pretend that Deep Spirit has replaced the ego's blathering. When this happens, other ego’s immediately go “woooo, did you hear what he said, that couldn’t be ego talking, so it must be the Truth of Deep Spirit.” (of course, spiritual ego games are played by both men and women. However, men are much more adept at egoic magnification and, so, most of our most prolific gurus tend to be male).

This is a winning strategy for ego, which has then asserted itself as “guru” or “master teacher” and in finite games there is only room for so many gurus or masters. Not everybody can be a guru or master. Therefore, the rules state that those who sound and act like gurus (requiring incredible marketing programs) MUST be gurus. What the game then requires is that all who wish to play must conform to the rules if they, too, want to be “awakened gurus.”

Here’s a few examples:

"I Cannot Leave, For My Transcendentally Spiritually "Bright" Divine Spherical Self-Domain Is Not Some "Where" To "Go To". My Divine Self-Domain Is Eternal. I Am Eternal, and I Am Always Already Merely Present-here, and every "where" In The Cosmic Domain.” By Means Of My Divine Avataric Incarnation here, I Have Given you My Divine Secret. My Divine Secret Is This: I Am Eternally Present, and I Am Omni-Present.” (Adi Da, Adidam.org)

"The life-embracing capacity of the highly developed soul comes directly from the transformative spiritual experience of oneness, wholeness, and completeness. When the self has directly seen that its own deepest depths are absolutely full to overflowing, all existential doubt is extinguished and we are freed to embrace the life process without reservation. But even then, our conviction and our surrender will be tested, again and again and again." (Andrew Cohen, Soul Development)

"Yes, maybe they are crazy, these divine fools. Maybe they are mumbling idiots in the face of the Abyss. Maybe they need a nice, understanding therapist. Yes, I'm sure that would help. But then, I wonder. Maybe the evolutionary sequence really is from matter to body to mind to soul to spirit, each transcending and including, each with a greater depth and greater consciousness and wider embrace. And in the highest reaches of evolution, maybe, just maybe, an individual's consciousness does indeed touch infinity—a total embrace of the entire Kosmos—a Kosmic consciousness that is Spirit awakened to its own true nature." (Ken Wilber, WIKI)

"I am not much of a religious person, I am not a saint, I have nothing to do with spirituality. All those categories are irrelevant about me. You cannot categorize me, you cannot pigeonhole me. But one thing can be said, that my whole effort is to help you release the energy called love-intelligence. If love-intelligence is released, you are healed." (Osho Quotes)

As you can see, these are some crazy-serious dudes!

Obviously, my ego is rapturously enjoying the exposing of other egos and expects you will applaud my efforts by sending more adoring emails, as opposed to the hate mail I seem to be currently receiving. Otherwise, how else will I win in comparison to others losing. Unless, of course, I actually have no intention of winning but simply wish to keep the game in play (unfortunately, my ego will have none of that! HA!)

Peace Angels,
mikeS

AWAKENING: A Multi-Billion Dollar Industry

The question I often have with all these outlandishly expensive “awakening” programs is: if I don’t get "awakened," can I get my money back!?

Like here and here. Or, better yet, how about this one here. Or how about this one with the guy who talks to God.


Does “awakening” come with a warranty? My refrigerator did.

Make no mistake, based on the world's terms, once you pay money, you have engaged in a business transaction. If I pay hundreds of dollars to receive this “product” shouldn’t I at least get a one year warranty? (let’s not deny that the ‘experience’ is the product) So, if for some reason my “awakening” becomes non-operational, shouldn’t I receive a refund or get a duplicate “awakening,” free of charge?

I got a feeling the economic collapse is gonna take a big bite outa the “awakening” business. I mean, look at those prices! So if I’m unemployed or on welfare, then “awakening” is certainly NOT in the budget

The absurdity of this is so utterly transparent that I often wonder why these “awakened” teachers fail to see it. Ironically, the game of “awakening” has really only one rule and that is that you NOT be "awakened," otherwise, you can’t play.

“Diane Hamilton is one of the top spiritual teachers in the world. With a master's degree in contemplative psychology from Naropa Institute, a degree in Feminist Studies from Stanford, and as a senior Zen student of Genpo Roshi and a senior teacher at Integral Spiritual Center, she has been helping other awaken to the power of the now moment for many years.” (here’s the link. unfortunately you gotta be “member-ized” to see this ad)

Wow! Looks like Diane is a fat cat in the awakening business. I find it interesting that most of the “top spiritual seekers in the world” often teach that the intellect cannot “take you there,” yet they advertise austere intellectual credentials, like “masters degree in contemplative psychology."

Not only is Diane a “senior Zen Student” but she is a “senior teacher at integral.” Obviously, I ain’t paying for no junior teachers! If I pay the big bucks you can be sure, bargain shopper that I am, I demand ONLY “senior” teachers.

IF IT'S ALL ABOUT "BE HERE NOW," THEN THE TEACHER IS THERE NOW.

Since you “manifest” the teacher, you can be sure that any teacher that comes to you through glitzy marketing productions is a teacher of your ego. The teacher that denies teaching, or doesn't even know their teaching, IS the teacher. But you only learn that after years of sitting in the "classroom" that you didn't even know you were IN.

I ‘found’ my teacher about 14 years ago. She was teaching lots of other students besides me and this urked me to no end.

So I quickly married her.

The problem is that I was looking all over the place and paying big bucks to sit at the feet of other teachers. It took me almost a decade to FULLY realize that the teacher was in my own house (not that I don’t pay big bucks for this one, too - figuratively speaking). It seems that, although I always sensed it, I resisted the idea that she could teach me anything. You know how I finally knew she was my teacher and everything I needed to get I could get from her? She told me that I was her teacher and that it took her almost a decade to realize the same thing. HA! Go figure.

Obviously, if this makes no sense, then clearly you are not yet "awakened"!

Defining Death Denies Life and Demands Sacrifice

The Jesus myth is pervasive to all cultures and this is why all cultures revere a 'person,' as serving up salvation, and miss the message that until you die to your definition of "death," living must elude you and therefore, you will die in exactly the way you define life....as eventually ending.

Well, heck, if "Jesus" is nothing but a conceptualization of your mind, then he did not suffer on the cross, YOU DID.... and most likely still do.

The concept of Jesus is the distraction just as the concept of Buddha is nothing but a distraction. It is the message that is supposed to save the suffering mind. But we miss the message and therefore, fail to live it. These "people" never existed, but then neither do "you." (I can't help it that you presently 'believe' you exist, but I imagine we all will eventually replace that distorted interpretation for something more equivalent to "truthiness").

This is something we have in common with the atheist. Only the atheist completely runs from the archetypic message, while we simply twist and distort it.

Savior myths/stories comparable to "Jesus" have been found in numerous ancient civilizations long before the Christians ever adopted it (remember Gilgamesh?). Most likely each civilization tailored the archetype to conform to its own cultural power structures (recall that Buddhism and Christianity went through numerous revisionistic councils until the approved stories were finally given to us in all their distorted glory).

The sacrifice that the cross symbolizes is played out day after day in our modern world. Note that, ironically, Christianity employs the symbol of death (cross) as primary to symbolic resurrection. Nevertheless, resurrection eludes us, since we believe we have not yet suffered enough. It seems we have learned nothing from the archetype but that it is a myth of supernatural and, thus, unattainable proportions for us mortal, weak and feeble humans. So, onward christian soldiers...rejoice in your suffering! Yet, never fear, one day we will all come down from the cross.

No wonder we chose to worship the personae, rather than live the message!

We have been stuffed with 'sacred' sacrifices until we are ready to burst and I suppose that when we do finally burst we will immediately recognize that all our seeking of purpose through suffering has been for naught. No sacrifice is necessary.

Nevertheless, even if you see it as a myth, in recognition that there was no Jesus or Buddha, it is a myth that evidently has been deemed to serve the betterment of humanity. Yet, the primordial problem is, why would humanity adopt resurrection when it has become so utterly fascinated with sacrifice?

Resurrection certainly seems to be the ultimate purpose of the savior myth. Yet, in 2000 yrs of idolizing the myth as 'true,' have we seen any tangible results, individually or collectively? Seems a bit of a time-waster, if you ask me.

"But, based on the "resurrection," didn't Jesus showed that that there is no death?"

Well...not exactly.

The real message we tend to miss is that Jesus was dead before he was nailed to the cross. And so are we, until we accept that our sacrifices are not longer necessary and we finally take the nails out from our hands (symbolically speaking, of course).

The resurrection symbolized rebirth not that "there is no death." This might seem insignificant, however, "no death" and rebirth are conceptually different. Therefore, you may 'die,' but you probably won't 'end' and this redefines the concept of death, because for most of us it symbolizes an ending to life and that's why we live our lives consistently vigilant in thwarting death. Our definition of the end of life (death) keep us consistently in fear. Thus, a life lived in fear is NO life at all.

If life is death, and that was the one and only message of the sacrifice, until you 'die' to your definition of death, you have yet to LIVE.

Jesus resurrected in order to prove there is no death and we need to stop living as if there were. But note that he didn't hang around too long afterward and many continue to expectantly await his return. (I suppose heaven is a bit too irresistible!)

Of course, return is imminent. Yet, contrary to popular opinion, it will be the return of a 'state of mind' and not a person of human form. Your resurrection is formless and of no substance, because your mind is that and when you completely join with formless and substanceless mind you will finally live free of bodily limitation. This is because, regardless of the U.S. constitution's proclamation of your inalienable rights and inherent freedoms, until the body no longer enslaves the mind, YOU ARE A PRISONER. This essentially means YOU ARE DEAD.

That's because, as most convicts will proclaim, living in prison is no life at all.

Is There "Space" Between Thoughts?

Many devout spiritualists claim that it is "in the space between 2 thoughts that absolute Truth is encountered."

Well now, that's an interesting proposition (although you'll hear it often in many neo-zen/advaitist circles).

Are they proposing that thought takes up "space"? (or is this some type of metaphorical sleight of hand?)

They also claim that, within that "space" that thought takes up or fills, there is an additional "space between," which we should seek to be IN so that we can have an encounter with "truth" of the absolute type. Would that be a kind of spaceless "space" then?

With respect to time and space, maybe thought is victim to 'time,' but is it also victimized by the crude grossness of "space"? Like the body or anything else with form and substance? Or is it a different kind of space? More of a spaceless-time?

Nevertheless, the masters claim that it is thought and thinking that must be transcended.

Yet, if thought is not victim to, or contained in or by space, as is all other forms and substances, then possibly it is not the villain they seem inclined to frame it as? If thought is not victim to space, and will have nothing to do with it, then there is no telling what can be done with it. If it is not contained then it must be, in some way, free. So why do we continue to act as if it is contained and thus, limited? And why does this limited thinking result in so much suffering?

Maybe we should stop trying to escape or run from it and seek to better harness its power?

In fact, maybe the "leap" they often speak of is not to leave 'thinking' behind, but to engage it more deeply then ever before. Geez, maybe thought is not doomed after all!

But, if that's true then we've been thinking the wrong way all along. Hence, were the ancient masters wrong?

When I broach these questions to many of our modern day spiritual teachers, I often find myself severely reproached, "how dare you question the ancient teachings!"

Sorry... I question everything. My bad!

Intervals between thought? Is there really any break, space or interval between thoughts? Is there some mystical space we call "no-thought" or "no-mind"? Certainly it would seem to appear that conscious thought has intervals or spaces between, but is there not an unconscious thinking that escapes conscious awareness, but that essentially fills the space or interval thereby creating a seamless string of uninterrupted thought? Is there ever a "time," of the slightest duration, in which one thought stops or pauses before the next?

And what about belief? If we agree that belief is the springboard for all thought patterns, where does belief reside if not in some subconscious realm that we are not consciously aware of? But, nevertheless, is it working consistently in our minds with no real break or interval? It must, if thought comes from that deeper field of meaning we call belief.

Many claim that thought is energy. But then, if thought is a form of energy do we need to quantify it within the space/time matrix?

Possibly 'thought' has nothing to do with space/time whatsoever. Conceptualizing it as "energy" would no doubt take us to theoretical, or "quantum," physics, but that's getting a bit overused ("what the bleep"), and even theoretical physics, a division of science, is ruled by sensory data to inform its theories.

Making thought your ally is a bit different than seeking no-thought, or the space between thought, in which you are essentially seeking to exit your thinking (or is that how one makes friends with thought?). Empower your thinking or seek to escape it? Take it further than ever before comprehended or discard it for some theoretical nirvana or bliss?

I am familiar with many of the neo-advaitists (Adyashanti being the more prolific). Adyashanti proclaims that there is no 'you' to think thoughts anyway and that is a typical advaitist theory. In this way thought and self is not necessarily demonized, but we cannot deny the underlying assumption that thought is our problem, so lets escape it and find the promise land of 'no-mind.' Right?

Unfortunately, there is a sense of self-denial in this 'no-thought' path that tends to disenfranchise the mind. Even though the mind MUST take you very far before the hypothetical dissolution or transcending many claim is blissful truth.

If by "engaging thought" we mean understanding thought, I think that may be correct. If by engaging it you mean getting more lost in thought, (which the macro society seems to reflect) then no...

Even egoic thought must serve to take us at least a part of the way, until some deeper guidance can be accessed. But even that will require thought, only it's the type of thinking that we have yet to think about or comprehend.

Sometimes I enjoy what seems to me a type of getting lost in thought. In fact, many of my posts have been just this type of rambling stream of consciousness (my apologies to those who have been bored by it). I often wonder, how high, how far into the deepest regions of thought, can we ascend (or maybe descend?).

I have seen individuals achieve life-changing insight resulting in the termination of a dysfunctional or maladaptive behavior (in fact, this has been my own personal experience through the effective use of thought). As far as transcendence or integration I'm at a loss to recall, although those are merely concepts that some equate with 'truth' but may not be truth in any sense of the word. Note that once you 'name' it, it cannot be anything more than the concept you have contained it in.

Are we really supposed to gain "understanding"? Maybe we should not seek to understand but become more comfortable with infinite understanding, as there may be no endpoint or finality to seeking? Maybe ONENESS is pathless because you can never understand and only that needs to be understood?

Maybe the belief that there is, or will be, some outcome or culmination, some final transcendence or integration, that many have 'named' enlightenment, realization, awakening etc, is a mistaken belief?

If absolute truth is infinite (I imagine we would agree it could not be finite), then why would we expect there to be some stage of final knowing?

Most likely, it never ends!

The Unsustainable Paradigm of the Solitary Seeker

I visited a wonderful website (Edge) recently that was a real motivational read in that the authors presented future epochal social and cultural changes that are incredibly exciting and sustainable. The authors clearly have the desire, that we all do, to envision changes to an "outside" world to replace the unsustainable existence we now seem to perpetuate.

One thing that seems to be missing in the changes many claim we are about to envision, as the old, unsustainable paradigms and value systems drop off, are changes to relationships. More specifically the changes to intimate relationships, which may require the very definition of intimacy to be re-evaluated or reinvented so as to be sustainable in a post-modern world.

The problem with the technological fix, which is the chief mode of change most visionaries seem to address, is that we tend to become overly reliant on technology to advance our evolution of consciousness. I feel this is a repetitive problem we face in that technology becomes symbolic of an advanced collective mind, when in reality we continue to compulsively fear and hate each other as we always have throughout the preceding centuries. Though it seems sad to me, technology has not seemed able to accelerate our advancement in our simply being more able to love each other (or in reducing the harm we perpetuate upon each other in so many ways).

The couples I meet, day in and day out, for "therapy," continue to exhibit reliance on the same tired old unsustainable paradigm of relating. The same fights and conflicts, the same patterned defense mechanisms and self-protective strategies continue to be taught by parents to children who then grow to further perpetuate, overt and covertly, mutual victimization of one another in the failure to clearly see the truth of what they do to one another and the global effects of this continued paradigm of 'love.'

Of course, this perpetual relationship conflict is a microcosm of the world and the same self-protective strategies we engage with, in our so called ‘love-relationships,' are the same strategies nation-states employ to maintain sovereign power and self-protection. Your ego is as sovereign as any country and when that ‘psychological sovereign-self' experiences threat it will attack. Whether through ICBM missiles or emotional poison darts, self-protection is the paradigm that need be changed.

I don't think this change will be soon availed of and this is because conscious advancement or "enlightenment/awakening" continue to be advocated as a solitary self endeavor. The self seeks enlightenment or awakening and we have very few paradigms which proclaim that this journey is a mutual endeavor that requires two or more. It seems the chief paradigm is of the solitary seeker engaging in austere and esoteric spiritual practices and from that, increases his/her loving engagement with others and the world. I sense that this paradigm is no longer sustainable, merely because it tends to leave out others and deny that we journey together. I feel that this paradigm asserts that this solitary seeking will eventually lead to the unified oneness but negates that it is NOW. I believe this tends to ignore that, as many "masters" have proclaimed, the journey is all there is and there is NO destination or goal to be achieved. It is in the journey together that you will find each other and YOURSELF.

In my opinion, the visionaries that seek to change the big picture by reinventing the little picture (the intimacy of two into one) will help create massive changes rather quickly. Otherwise, we merely delay our collective enlightenment, in seeking to tweak the old model/paradigm by applying band aids to surface wounds when the real disease is epidemic and deep within the conscious and unconscious individual and collective mind. Let's go there together and apply the cure so that we can never again think apart.

Without this intimacy with ourselves how can we expect to achieve the degree of intimacy with the world that will result in the love that will change it?