I'm looking for a book describing how the ego functions and how to attain balance which I can recommend for the average person. I have found that Buddhism books can turn people off, so if you know of one it should be generalized enough.
I've never read Krishnamurti or Alan Watts for instance. How much focus does Krishnamurti actually spend describing the function of the ego? Because it seems as if he mostly speaks about topics and how we view them through our emotional lens, without directly addressing the ego. His books would seem to be a good companion piece.
What about Watts' The Book? Judging by the reviews, it seems to be a little too Zen for some. I certainly haven't read any Eckhart Tolle either, and his 'pain body' concept sounds misleading. Any thoughts are helpful.
Watts is great. I think he's responsible for some misleading interpretation of eastern thought, however (the 'ego'). Also, the eastern ideas as related by Tolle, et al. are not evolutionary - they merely point to the ground of being, which many have already found by now.
For balance, the ego deals with the personal unconscious in the form of the 'shadow'. Robert A. Johnson's books are very approachable by the average person. They address symbolism, mythology, and psychology. "Owning Your Own Shadow: Understanding the Dark Side of the Psyche" is good.
If you're looking for yet another articulation of the spiritual journey, but from an evolutionary/upward-spiral context (rather than a wholly circular reference 'back to the source') I recommend Cohen's "Evolutionary Enlightenment" (just read first few chapters and it's very simple).
A shaman once told me for balance, consider what you like and what you don't like and why. That's basically one of the simplest approaches I've heard. I think you will find that what you like may not be accepted just as must as what you don't like. There is a difficulty, but reward in determining these dispositions.
Here's an exercise for some - blockage or a feeling of pressure or stifling in the solar plexus area (what Ra had identified as 'ego') is often indicative of unprocessed emotions or repressed feeling. If you breathe deeply for a while, then go into a feeling state and bring that feeling to consciousness, thinking 'what is it that I feel'? That tends to reflect the current disposition of ego and is a clue to balance (integrating its opposite).
I have always scoffed at Tolle as yet another teacher saying what has already been said, but I suppose every so often someone has to catch the attention of the public. For the beginner, he seems effectively simple. I am mainly looking for a book that does deal with the ground of being, mindful thinking etc., because it should be a book for those who haven't yet learned how to use the mind.
Is that book by Johnson vague? I've read half of Inner Gold and it is disappointing so far.
Those are helpful exercises. I'm looking for something that you can hand to an absolute beginner though, who may not even be open to the idea of blockages or chakras. I'm not sure that any one book is the answer. Usually we pick and choose ideas from many.
(10-25-2011, 11:41 PM)Icaro Wrote: [ -> ]I have always scoffed at Tolle as yet another teacher saying what has already been said, but I suppose every so often someone has to catch the attention of the public. For the beginner, he seems effectively simple. I am mainly looking for a book that does deal with the ground of being, mindful thinking etc., because it should be a book for those who haven't yet learned how to use the mind.
Tolle is great for a beginner because it's simple and people can relate. Krishnamurti tends to identify 'thought' as the problem and does have some insightful ideas. His 1974 PBS interview (18 parts) with Allan Anderson was fantastic. There is no way you could get away with that depth of consideration on TV today.
(10-25-2011, 11:41 PM)Icaro Wrote: [ -> ]Is that book by Johnson vague? I've read half of Inner Gold and it is disappointing so far.
Never read "Inner Gold". Johnson has a lot of insight into 'living' mythology, however. I read 'Owning the shadow' quite I while ago, and I am only suggesting it because it's one of the only I know that is for a beginner.
(10-25-2011, 11:41 PM)Icaro Wrote: [ -> ]I'm looking for something that you can hand to an absolute beginner though, who may not even be open to the idea of blockages or chakras.
Usually, the desire for balance is what leads one to 'inner work'. But to actually know that one is not in balance, and further, to appreciate the nature of subjective experience - which is reflecting one's condition - is not something which tends to be grasped immediately. A lot of people only begin that type of search (or realize that it's possible) in the 'second half of life'. That is, after they're satisfied with something they wanted and now, perhaps, are not satisfied because they are honest enough to realize it was not enough.
Sure, I meant not open in the sense of believing in an energetic blockage as a metaphysically valid concept. I think many would like to work more consciously on their inner-selves but they simply haven't been exposed to any kind of framework. I'll have to read the Power of Now before I go recommending it, and I see that whole PBS interview is on Youtube.
Well, this is an excerpt from the Law of One to begin with.
Questioner: Can you tell me how you balance the ego?
Ra: I am Ra. We cannot work with this concept as it is misapplied and understanding cannot come from it.
However, there is a psychic called 'Carol Ann Dryer' who may be worth a check out.
Alright, thanks. It could be argued that in third density, ego is the negative aspect of our mind that is constantly trying to induce separation. It is always the victim, and goes to great lengths in placing everything outside of itself, especially the individual in relation to society.
(10-26-2011, 11:11 AM)Phoenix Wrote: [ -> ]Well, this is an excerpt from the Law of One to begin with.
Questioner: Can you tell me how you balance the ego?
Ra: I am Ra. We cannot work with this concept as it is misapplied and understanding cannot come from it.
Could it be they gave that answer because the ego in itself is illusionary?
Normal conscious experience will always first be viewed through the ego, or perhaps it is best said that the more imbalanced you are the more polarized your thoughts will be, therefore subjecting more of its influence. It seems the ego is an intimate part of the mind complex (probably a large part of the complex itself), since it is responsible for emphasizing polarized thought. So yes, what you said! It is best to break down all the concepts of creation, rather than trying to explain the ego as a thing in itself, so that's probably why Ra didn't want to approach it in the manner asked.
In the past, many only recognized the ego and 'I Am', believing that the ego must be transcended in order to always remain in the I Am state. When people would take psychedelics for instance, experiencing the present more clearly, they would attribute the loss of self as death of the ego because you enter into a realm of pure 'being'. There is some truth to the idea of ego death because there are intimate relationships with being, but it is not that simplistic. So the psychedelic era created some confusion around the subject. The proper understanding is that there is a Self in relation to the other two, and it is who we really are in the moment. The ego seems to stand in between the Self and the Logos in terms of perception. Unified Logos (pure being)-->Ego-->Self..where Self is an individual aspect of the Logos.
(10-26-2011, 11:45 AM)Meerie Wrote: [ -> ] (10-26-2011, 11:11 AM)Phoenix Wrote: [ -> ]I am Ra. We cannot work with this concept as it is misapplied and understanding cannot come from it.
Could it be they gave that answer because the ego in itself is illusionary?
I can't guess at Ra's meanings, so, it could very well be. I find it interesting they use the word 'misapplied'. Perhaps they mean that the concept of ego we have links very heavily with the mind and does not include ego as an energy but talks of it as a sort of 'inner demon'. Also that everyone's ego is seen as the same, not that some might ally or non ally with the 'ego'.
(10-26-2011, 11:11 AM)Phoenix Wrote: [ -> ]Well, this is an excerpt from the Law of One to begin with.
Questioner: Can you tell me how you balance the ego?
Ra: I am Ra. We cannot work with this concept as it is misapplied and understanding cannot come from it.
We do not possess an 'ego'.
We are possessed by the idea of one. --
Wei Wu Wei
I'm not sure whether Krishnamurti (Jiddu I suppose) is something for a beginner. Eckhart Tolle is certainly better suited.
(10-26-2011, 05:12 PM)ƒ❤losopher Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not sure whether Krishnamurti (Jiddu I suppose) is something for a beginner.
He asks the right questions, which people don't always do. Some might find those questions hard to digest, I agree, but I don't think it's ever too early to start.
I cannot relate to Krishnamurti. Right now I am enjoying David R Hawkins and Alan Watts... if you wanna check them out, there are lots of videos of their talks on youtube.
What they seem to say about the Ego is - it is useless to try to over come it. Stop identifying with it, is the way to go. Know that you are not the Ego.
(according to D Hawkins, the Ego is only about 1%. 99 % of the mind is silent!!! imagine, it is only 1 percent that causes all the chatter and confusion
)
Since you wanted book recommendations, there is one that talks about the ego:
http://www.amazon.com/Dissolving-Ego-Rea...831&sr=1-1
(10-26-2011, 11:11 AM)Phoenix Wrote: [ -> ]Well, this is an excerpt from the Law of One to begin with.
Questioner: Can you tell me how you balance the ego?
Ra: I am Ra. We cannot work with this concept as it is misapplied and understanding cannot come from it.
However, there is a psychic called 'Carol Ann Dryer' who may be worth a check out.
Ego simply means I. The ego is the focus of consciousness. How does one balance the focus of consciousness?
What is being balanced is the unconscious with respect to the conscious, regardless of current focus of consciousness.
(10-27-2011, 01:52 AM)Meerie Wrote: [ -> ]What they seem to say about the Ego is - it is useless to try to over come it. Stop identifying with it, is the way to go. Know that you are not the Ego.
But you are the ego, as you had created it. When people say 'you are not the ego', what they are talking about is ego identification. Watts is the guy that gave is this idea (for better or worse). People still misuse the term to refer to pathological aspects of self (inflated ego, ego-centric). If you look at it, it is meaningless. This is why Ra said they couldn't work with it.
Ra did mention that the yellow-ray center was the closest thing to the term 'ego'.
Yeah that is what I meant. If you know you are not the Ego you don't identify with it anymore. Or the other way round, if you don't identify with it anymore, you realize you are not it.
(10-27-2011, 01:52 AM)Meerie Wrote: [ -> ]Since you wanted book recommendations, there is one that talks about the ego:
http://www.amazon.com/Dissolving-Ego-Rea...831&sr=1-1
I had looked at that online. It's basically pocket sized, so much of the information is in short passages. I'll try to find a copy to look over.
(10-26-2011, 10:50 PM)Icaro Wrote: [ -> ]He asks the right questions, which people don't always do. Some might find those questions hard to digest, I agree, but I don't think it's ever too early to start.
Yes -- given there's the urge from within.
(10-27-2011, 01:52 AM)Meerie Wrote: [ -> ]Right now I am enjoying David R Hawkins
Ah, Hawkins. Somewhat dubious fellow, but good writing. Have all his books save the last.
Transcending the Levels of Consciousness is the one to go for, imo. But for a beginner a bit tome-y.
One should always bear in mind, however, that he's a bit of a cult-leader with his absolute belief in his infallibility in applying
kinesiology.
(10-25-2011, 11:14 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]If you're looking for yet another articulation of the spiritual journey, but from an evolutionary/upward-spiral context (rather than a wholly circular reference 'back to the source') I recommend Cohen's "Evolutionary Enlightenment" (just read first few chapters and it's very simple).
I went to hear a lecture of his the other week by the way. His idea is fine, but he admitted himself that he didn't know how to apply it. The audience kept asking valid questions related to our current condition but he didn't have answers. Not that it is his purpose to have
the answers, because it is a collective process, but they wanted to hear some application of the theory yet he had nothing to say. I get the feeling that he simply wants to stop short of any personal opinion, because then he is no longer passively teaching about consciousness, but rather moving into the realm of social commentary. It's as if he wants to remain "clean".
Someone actually trying to practice what they preach? I like him already.
He was concise and articulate, I enjoyed listening to him, but I just found it ironic that in talking about creating something new, there were no ideas offered about what 'new' should encompass. I certainly wasn't looking to him for answers, but I was hoping that a dialogue would form between him and the audience, yet nothing new was discussed. Kind of defeats the purpose of talking about shaping tomorrow if we don't discuss what tomorrow should be and how we get there. My critique is that he needs to be more engaging with the issues.
I'm reading the preview of No Boundary by Wilber and it doesn't sound too bad for a beginner.
The thing that bugs me about D R Hawkins is that he does not give clues on how to proceed. He just says "surrender it all to God". (maybe he gets more specific in "dissolving the ego..." - if you read it, Icaro, I would be interested to hear your opinion.)
Andrew Cohen? on some of his book review they accuse him to be some kind of narcisstic guru (on amazon). Sympathetic though if he admits he does not know it all.
(10-27-2011, 09:18 PM)ƒ❤losopher Wrote: [ -> ]One should always bear in mind, however, that he's a bit of a cult-leader with his absolute belief in his infallibility in applying kinesiology.
A.K. is only capable of accurately testing according to the relative balance of the practitioner. There are always unconscious motivations (should see's) which will skew results.
(10-27-2011, 10:37 PM)Icaro Wrote: [ -> ]I get the feeling that he simply wants to stop short of any personal opinion, because then he is no longer passively teaching about consciousness, but rather moving into the realm of social commentary. It's as if he wants to remain "clean".
Most who talk about what will happen have been wrong. You're basically substituting wish-fulfilliment for what may actually be more viable or healthy for society. Then you start to become an embarrassed false-prophet like Calleman. As we see plainly in this forum, the intuition can be way overextended to the point of only serving to reinforce "stage props" for hopes (ooooh, I resonate with that it must be true). But this overextension is inevitably not congruent with reality, so what good does it do?
Any change related to moneyless society, or everyone contributing equally, or whatever would not be effective without transparency of values between individuals and between society and the individual. That would mean transparency of mind. If we don't have such a shared consensus readily "on tap" it can't happen.
Naturally over time though, a more unified consensus is going to form as we attempt to progress. To move in that direction there should be more discussion as to what is healthy and viable is the point I am making. As in, what values do we have to start living by and teaching today, and why? It's kind of fruitless to gather everyone together to talk about evolutionary enlightenment without discussing real values. That's what everyone at the lecture wanted to do, including Ashok Gangadean, the philosophy professor who held the forum (he was excellent), but all the issues were skirted around.
Meerie - I decided not to get that book by Hawkins.
(10-28-2011, 11:26 AM)Icaro Wrote: [ -> ]Naturally over time though, a more unified consensus is going to form as we attempt to progress. To move in that direction there should be more discussion as to what is healthy and viable is the point I am making. As in, what values do we have to start living by and teaching today, and why? It's kind of fruitless to gather everyone together to talk about evolutionary enlightenment without discussing real values. That's what everyone at the lecture wanted to do, including Ashok Gangadean, the philosophy professor who held the forum (he was excellent), but all the issues were skirted around.
I agree, we must elicit values in order to understand what enables our development. The pluralists avoid this out of fear, for they have identified with a self that is sustained by a belief of no 'right' way (or all 'right' way). Bur philosophically we can provide various contexts from which to portray where we're at and where we can go. And that kind of dialog does require both intuitive perception and rational valuing.
Yes, so I don't think Cohen is saying anything particularly new honestly. It is just social change re-contextualized, where evolutionary enlightenment has replaced the phrase of creating culture.
(10-29-2011, 06:07 PM)Icaro Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, so I don't think Cohen is saying anything particularly new honestly. It is just social change re-contextualized, where evolutionary enlightenment has replaced the phrase of creating culture.
The value I get from Cohen's work is his ability to articulate the mental/spiritual condition and various modalities from a quite viable perspective. It is important to identify these aspects of the human condition in order that they can be recognized and accepted in an accessible manner - to bring them to light. That is, so that there is a (grounded) place made for these relationships. Otherwise, we have more potential for missteps (ego inflation, false valuing, indentifcation, etc). I do not see many people offering such a 'road map' - one that goes deep yet remains simple and honest. So to me, it's like another reference.
Sure, it's not being able to jump into more deep conversation that is frustrating I suppose.
I don't get that he's philosophically oriented - in the sense of the
greek dialogs, that is. The Greeks had no problem observing nature and, from that experience, explaining exactly how self knowledge leads to a better life. We don't do that today for some reason other than to enforce conformity.
Wilber does get into more social commentary, however. His
integral politics, for example.
Yes his ideas are interesting. I ordered No Boundary and Integral Psychology.
(10-30-2011, 02:10 PM)Icaro Wrote: [ -> ]Yes his ideas are interesting. I ordered No Boundary and Integral Psychology.
A Brief History of Everything is also a good read. If you have some free time, check out Peter Collin's work on
Integral Mathematics where he shows how developmental dynamics may be tied to number. He also wrote a number of articles
here.