To: alt.magick.tyagi,talk.religion.misc,alt.consciousness.mysticism,alt.magick.tantra
From: nagasiva@luckymojo.com (nagasiva)
Subject: Ego, Spirituality and Unification (was ego and spirit don't mix
Date: 31 Mar 1999 12:16:08 -0800

49990331 IIIom 

james lee driftmier <jimmyd@u.washington.edu>:
# The modernization (if you will) of the concepts of Tantra, Karezza,
# Oceanna, Conscious Loving... etc. is to promote the beautiful union 
# of the "Two" into the "One" or if you are into the religious aspects 
# as well, then the "Three" into the "One."  The third party is your 
# choice of "God."

this reminds me greatly of something that was repeated often in my
studies (mostly in books, sometimes with other devotees; even Kali
suggested it as a possibility a time or two):

	Eventually the god must be left behind, trascended,
	in order to achieve 'moksha' or liberation.

I disagree with this very strongly, and I don't think (though admit
of the possibility :>) that it has to do with my fervent devotion
to my goddess as I understand Her. 

this contention makes its appearance in the Christo-Indian
statement that everything must be reduced to a 'God-unity'.
neither do I see this as necessary nor do I understand that
this requires the desertion of the god ('burned away' as 
was reported of gurus like Sri Ramakrishna). I'd agree that
this is ONE way to approach liberation, but there are others.

the perspective that ego represents an 'obstacle' to
spiritual development is bound up with very specific notions
of what the 'ego' represents. Freudian psychology does not
seem to favor the Ego, nor in many ways do Eastern mystics
who like to adopt Western psychological language to justify
or explain their ideas.

Jungian and Transpersonal psychologists seem to have more
useful ideas about the Ego as a centerpoint of the personality,
contrasted with the 'person' which is applied over it as a mask.
typically the mystic will demonize the 'ego' rather than come
to understand that phenomenon of ego-inflation is but one
possible outcome of personal exploration and transformation.

those mystical systems which promote 'casting aside the ego'
are liable to be misunderstood by those who are fond of what
they call 'individuality' and 'egocentricity' as positive
and healthy developments of personality. what they come off
promoting (rather than 'putting aside buffers between oneself
and the world -- the personae) is self-disintegration and
self-destruction, especially when combined with some type of
guru-chela relationship in which hierarchical, dominating or
surrendering activity.

this activity on its own can be quite valuable, but I contend
that the center of personality is never "lost" or "dropped"
except in truly sad cases, becoming drones for the cult.
instead, the success of mysticism involves the realization
of the self in a clearer and honest personality which has
few buffers between the ego and the world. it is truly
'egocentric' in a valuable sense (i.e. 'grounded and
centered') and exemplifies honesty, sincerety and, as
sri catyananda has made plain in another thread, 
vulnerability).  

this clear-centeredness is what I would associate with
'spirituality' as the individual is resolved and freed
from the torment of contending personal energies.  its
climax is what I have identified as 'moksha' or
'liberation' quite aside from Indian cosmological models,
and I think it has been described in a number of mystical
and psychological contexts (e.g. 'nirvana', 'beatitude',
and 'self-realization'.

but I don't think that such clarity is ONLY approached by
the resolution of the person, the world, the worship, to
an undifferentiated unity. it seems to me that the variety
of attention-foci exemplified in meditation throughout the
world symbolize the corresponding variety of possible
means of self-clarifying. that is, it may be done in
response to a single object, two (forming a triad), three
(forming a quartad), etc., as well as diffusion within an
unbounded unity (the preference of many monotheists and
pantheists).


# This isn't a topic that should promote bickering or competition, 
# the whole focus is to learn to view the world, and especially 
# your partner, through a "lense" of love.  There is not a right 
# way for all.  What works for some, may not provide the path 
# for another.

anything can become the subject of contention. the religious
world is sometimes pent up with a resistance to respectful
struggle, thus seldom setting an example of it. those who
thereafter engage in disputation will at times venture off
into ad hominem and rudeness because they have not caught
the meaning of "as brothers fight ye!" in texts like the
Evil Book. it is one thing to disagree, another to insult.

complaining about bickering is sometimes quite valuable in
bringing the conversation around to a more loving atmosphere.
however, at other times it is just another way for religious
to make one another wrong. my preference these days is to
ignore the bickering wherever possible and try to set an
example of plain dispute with respect. a number of us doing 
likewise will eventually set the stage for curtailment
of bickering and disrespect, setting a standard that could
spread throughout usenet, the internet and the world.

call me a utopian :>
nagasiva@luckymojo.com