Hi Mark,

I think you make an important distinction between working on ourselves and working in service to the whole, and while they overlap to some degree, there are important differences. "Individual peace is very different from collective peace", for example.

Thanks for these thought-provoking insights.

Hi Alan,

I think it's important to distinguish between working on ourselves for ourselves, being in harmony with the whole, and making a contribution in service to the whole. When we're focused on improving our own state it involves one of the first two, and frankly even if we're in harmony it is relatively easy to do in this part of the world where we're more affluent. But regardless, it is a different movement to be making a contribution. In order to make a contribution it would mean we're not simply responding to what already exists in the world, and although one doesn't have to be an innovator and increasing the peace by being in harmony can be a contribution in itself, individual peace (say, through a meditative practice) is very different from collective peace.

And perhaps we can only make a small contribution to the collective, and because it is but a ripple people may not really take notice. After all, it is easier for people to identify with something that allows them to achieve peace as an individual. But rather than recognizing people as an individual that contributes to our sense of well being as another individual, maybe we can recognize each other for the contribution made in oneness, for oneness.

Mark and Istiota, your last points are particularly important to me.

Istiota said, "Can "we" think our way out of the crises we face? ...My answer is yes -- if "we" recognize that the "we" who thinks our way out of war, poverty, starvation, and disease must be the One Divine Being, not separate body-Egos, of which all men are inextricably bound. This One Divine Being is none other than the ubiquitous energy consciousness that Jill Bolte Taylor experienced in her "Stroke Of Insight".

I think both of you are getting at the core of the challenge we face: We humans are naive, if not inflated, to think we can solve our challenges solely from the egoic level. I'd even go so far as to assert this whole state of affairs is purpose-built to get us to learn that we can't do it on our own. Istiota said as much here: "We are engaged in one of many opportunities that the One arranges for our benefit." Very nicely stated. A human/divine partnership is, I think, what is required, and that leads to what Mark said:

"Unfortunately much of modern spirituality appears to be obsessed with the individual and the internal state of the individual...How rare is a true opening of the heart, and how precious! Will there be someone there to recognize and honor it for what it is when it does happen?"

It is seemingly paradoxical that we have to simultaneously work on ourselves to be of service to the whole, but that is also the crux. It is our duty at this time, I think, to do so, and frame our efforts in their proper motivation...not individual spiritual attainment, but to be of service, and to the degree we are guided by the heart I think we can succeed. I'd certainly like to think that if enough people engage in this from a heart-center, that there will be people here to recognize and honor it when it happens.

Thank you for that last point about a real global oneness Istlota. Unfortunately much of modern spirituality appears to be obsessed with the individual and the internal state of the individual. While I think some modern teachers such as Eckhart Tolle do have something of value to offer, it tends to be taken as another form of self-help. So my concern is not only a matter of ethnic, political and cultural identity but also this very subtle form of spiritual ego. As far as the body is concerned, clearly it goes even further than that. As another example, obviously hatha yoga has spiritual roots, but it seems the way it is thought of by many today is another "in-thing" for body image. When we are so engrossed in our "special identity," it is no wonder that oneness itself - which is an aspect of many teachings - can become yet another trend, a nice idea for the mind to cling to.

How rare is a true opening of the heart, and how precious! Will there be someone there to recognize and honor it for what it is when it does happen?

By definition, while we are incarnated, we are married to the body. And, that is okay while we are in this mortal realm. But, let us re-examine what our relationship should be to this body we are married to.

We should treat our body as we do our car. By all means, keep it maintained. Keep it in good running condition, feed it quality fuel -- this is all wise. But .... as with our car, recognize that IT IS NOT I and that its needs are not as important as the needs of the real I, which is not that body or that car.

Ahamkara-Ego, by contrast, insists that the needs of this body of flesh and bone are as much, if not more, important than the needs of the I. Hence, even though the I recognizes that all men are One, and that peace is better than war, Ego says, well, wait a minute.

Ahamkara-Ego argues, well, you know that the physical safety of your _individual_ body, which it pretends is you, is more important than Oneness. Hence, Ahamkara-Ego argues, to protect your _individual_ body, it is wise to assume that a separate body-Ego, with Arab features, might be a Arab terrorist. And, Ahamkara-Ego convinces you that a separate body-Ego, with young male black features, might be a gangbanger. And, from there, Ahamkara-Ego convinces you that it is okay for the security forces of the State to treat that Arab, and that black guy, differently from you.

This is the dynamic that fuels America's shameful refusal to even acknowledge how many Iraqi civilians our military has killed. Ahamkara-Ego says, well, wait a minute. Those _separate_ body-Egos, with Iraqi features, might be insurgents. So, to protect American body-Egos, Ahamkara-Ego convinces Americans that it is okay for American soldiers to point guns at Iraqi civilians driving to work and that it is okay for American soldiers to break into Iraqi civilian homes, at gunpoint, in the middle of the night. And, when innocent Iraqi civilians get killed in the process, Ahamkara-Ego argues that this is necessary because American body-Egos are more important than Iraqi body-Egos.

This, of course, has nothing to do with Global Oneness. But, it is one of the many inescapable consequences of choosing to see the One race of humanity as diverse individuals.

And, how do we define this diversity? By physical and mental attributes. But, as mentioned before, Western culture has even reduced mentality to the physical body -- the brain. Hence, all this misperception of diversity is fueled by Ahamkara-Ego's insistence that we, the One race, are diverse, individual bodies.

Let us get back to the original question. Can "we" think our way out of the crises we face?

Again, my answer is yes -- if "we" reognize that the "we" who thinks our way out of war, poverty, starvation, and disease must be the One Divine Being, not separate body-Egos, of which all men are inextricably bound. This One Divine Being is none other than the ubiquitous energy consciousness that Jill Bolte Taylor experienced in her "Stroke Of Insight":

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_o...

As we, with our nuclear stockpiles and our global warming and our chemical warfare agents and our HAARP and our Large Hadron Collider, hurtle towards the extinction of homo sapiens, humanity has an urgent need.

We are not just engaged in a stimulating discussion. We are engaged in one of many opportunities that the One arranges for our benefit. We are engaged in an opportunity to make a critical decision with world-changing consequences.

We are engaged in an opportunity to decide if we _really_ are serious about this Global Oneness Project --- or, if what we _really_ want is a faux Global Oneness limited to when it doesn't conflict with the desires of our _separate, American, body-Egos.

Peace, peace, peace.

This is an interesting discussion to me because whenever one posits putting aside the ego and focusing on the present moment, for example, the question of what remains of the ego comes up. While acknowledging Istiota's definition, I've tended to equate the ego with an identity of "me", with my associated identifications and tools kind of constellated around it, like memories, intellect, body, etc.
I think these identities can be helpful up to a point, and then they become hindrances, because they can hold us back.
I've been of the mind that so long as we're incarnated the ego continues to be required for practical purposes (as Tolle posits, for "practical" matters like keeping an appointment), but, borrowing from Jung, the further along one moves toward individuation, the ego-self's center of gravity moves toward the Self, or Deep Centre, or Heart Centre. As such, the ego is gradually "conditioned" by the exposure to the deeper wisdom of the Self and becomes gradually more in service of the Self. In this way, the ego remains, but takes a lesser role over time as the evolution of consciousness occurs over the trajectory of one lifetime.

Thus, I'd suggest there isn't necessarily an on-off switch between the egoic state and the non-egoic state, just as I'd say there isn't a definite line between ego and physical body identification, as Mark says.

LISA: I also watched Dr. Bolton’s video and was deeply touched and inspired by her experience. As you indicated, she associates certain aspects of Self, specifically Oneness, with the right hemisphere of the brain. Specifically, she defines us, you and I, as “energy beings” who are connected to the energy all around us through the consciousness of our right hemisphere. Oneness, then, would be this aggregate, infinite, “waters of Nu”, consciousness with which my individual left-hemispheric-consciousness communicates. I would say she is very close to the One Truth.

But, her assessment of consciousness is distinctly Western in its reduction of all that is to something physical. Hence, consciousness, and even our energy beingness, is reduced to something physical, something that man can measure with his five senses – the left hemisphere of the brain.

I subscribe to the Eastern notion of the entire physical world, which includes the brain, as being Maya --- an illusory reflection of the One reality whch is not physical, but spirit. Maya's physical world is only an approximation of the Real World.

Have you read “Holographic Universe” by Michael Talbot? Among many other fascinating topics, he discusses documented cases of people who were pronounced brain-dead, and yet some time later, the person fully recovers. Where/what was the essence of this person’s being when his physical brain, both hemispheres, ceased to function?

It is intriguing to consider the possibility that, maybe, what Western science considers to be brain functionality, whether left or right hemisphere, is, perhaps, not as married to our physical gray matter as neurologists currently think.

MARK: I define Ego as the misperception that I am an individual, physical, body. I do not associate Ego with any portion of the physical brain or with intellect or reason.

When I say Ego, keep in mind that we are laboring under the hopelessly dual language of English --- a language not well suited to converse upon spiritual matters. When I say Ego, I am referring to that which, in sanskrit, is called Ahamkara.

This ego that Western science associates with intellect, reason, or logic can mature and change with age. And, then, upon mortal death, it ceases to be. But, if the Self, the true essence of I, is immortal, as I believe it to be, than the Immutable Self cannot be that ego or Ahamkara-Ego.

Istlota, I'm curious as to how you would describe identifying as explicitly not ego, as you define it as always undesirable. Also, do you recognize ego as a stage in human development, and in that context do you see it as avoidable or not? In another thread you had defined ego itself as identification with the physical body, but as you may know you'd find many would disagree that is the only identification. While there is identification with the body, (and more so earlier on developmentally speaking, such as Piagets sensori-motor stage) it seems clear there are subtler types of identification with mental constructs such as our social roles and even spiritual identities, which is the last place we'd look. Clearly if we have religious wars then ego is very much involved with spiritual identities.

HI istlota,

I'd like continue this dialogue – after a short delay as I'll be away 2 weeks visiting family.

But quickly – a question: your points above are especially interesting to me if, as I understand your definition of Ego as the self-centered, controlling "undesirable" part(s) - rather than - ego as I usually think of it being synonymous (+/-) to the entirety of the Left Brain hemisphere inclusive of intellect & reason (desirable parts, to me) as well as that (obnoxious) over-inflated, self-centered, highly undesirable part you alert us about…

Am I getting your definition of ego correct? And if so, what are your thoughts on intellect & reason? - Keep 'em or toss 'em? :-)

BTW - have you had a chance to watch Dr. Jill Bolton's "Stroke of Insight" talk at TED yet? Her description of brain hemisphere functions is what I'm trying to describe above. (Fancinating video!)

Thanks, and more soon.

Peace, Happiness and Thanksgiving to All of You - Everyday!

Yes. We must recognize our inner anarchy and how it manifests as our violent behaviours. And, then, recognizing that I have a problem, a larger challenge arises. Many of us recognize that peace is superior to war, and that love is superior to hate, and that all men, ideally, should be One. Yet, recognizing this, we still fail to find it within ourselves to do what we know is right.

It is not enough to simply condemn ourselves, or others, for falling short of where we already know we should be. What is needed is a method that will lead us from what ever imperfect state we may be in to the perfect state of Oneness.

A set of hypotheses for your consideration:

1) It _is_ possible to exist in this life without Ego. We think Ego is indispensable because Ego insists, incorrectly, that it is I. What is needed is for I to recognize that it is Ego I must fight against, not I. The natural state of I is Pure and Perfect Peace. It is Ego, not I, that is inherently anarchic.

2) I fail to do what is right when I identify with Ego -- when I identify I as a diverse individualized Ego.

3) I succeed in doing what is right when I identify I as explicitly not Ego.

4) I use Ego in nonproductive ways because it is impossible to do otherwise once I choose to allow Ego to co-exist with I. As with the mythical vampire, once you invite it in, it takes control of your being from you. What is needed is to not invite Ego into your city of nine gates in the first place.

5) If I can accept that Ego is _always_ undesirable, I can then train I, as I would learn to play the piano, or learn to meditate, to rise above Ego, to separate from the idea of being a diverse individual.

6) This separation of I and Ego requires renunciation. Renounce attachment to that which Ego says is pleasurable. And, renounce aversion to that which Ego says is to be feared.

7) Renouncing attachment and aversion, all that is left is do is to enjoy what is left --- Oneness.

Peace, Peace, Peace.