higherself

did the ascensionists on earth take 'ego' the wrong way?

here is a passage from one of the most famous metaphysical books which was written over a century ago - "a dweller on two planets" by phylos the thibetan, as channelled via automatic writing by the then 18yr old f. s. oliver in 1884.

"the reason, plain to me now, but not then, briefly is: that a person in dying is separated into psychic elements which, not to be too detailed in the statement, are threefold, earthly, phychic and spiritual. of these the highest is the "i am", the ego. the others are those above mentioned as spoken by gwauxin, and as in the prison [physical location mentioned earlier]. now, the ego seeks an exhalted level; the "shell" stays in the earthly conditions until the body, finally dissolved, is "dust to dust". the exhalted or egoic state is one of isolation. as spoken in biblical records, a medium can go to it, but the ego, after after a little while, cannot return to the earth, nor know anything earthly save those extremely tense mental-spiritual states of one or many individuals who reach out for the things of god. and these are not earthly. this is real mediumship. the genuine medium rises to the necessary height, but the ego cannot descend to earth, cannot deny the law of progress, except during a limited period after the transition called death, and then it is not retrogression."

the above, channelled by one who lived not on earth, despite the earthlike references (probably for the reference/benefit of the author), but on another world centuries ago which ascensionism took over defines ego in a very different way to here on earth.

here on earth, ego, given to meaning the personality, is considered to be a bad thing. but still, how many messages insist on followers being 'egoless'. in the case above that would mean releasing our own souls.... but here on earth, where a mindlessly unquestioning 'chela' is preferable, we haven't been given an alternative name to what it is which reaches that spiritual height.

according to the quoted passage above ego is the soul itself. but if you haven't read the book, what you mightn't realise it that he, the narator, is at that stage of the story actually a clone of the recently deseased original. and as a clone, uplifted from the mundane states of life and death, he is the "higher self".

for comparison, the following is an excerpt from the book "becoming enlightened" by his holiness the dalai lama, published in 2009. very early in the book he discusses one of the fundamental beliefs of buddhism (from p.3) -

"some 2500 years ago, buddha set forth a new religion in india. some aspects of his ideas had already appeared there earlier, but no one had defined these perspectives and techniques as conclusively as he would. what is at their core? SELFLESSNESS. long before him, many sought to analyse the status of the self, but not only did they teach that the self exists, they held that it exists independent of the mind and the body. however, buddha concluded that when we assert dthat the self exists independently, our innate sense of self-centeredness increases and solidifies. as a result, the lust, anger, pride, jealousy, and doubt stem from being self-centered grow stronger and more ingrained.

seeing that the defective states of mind such as lust and hatred are rooted in egotism, buddha taught something that had not been explained before him, the view of selflessness. this was exceptional, and indeed for more than 2500 years that have passed since his time, no one outside of his tradition has taught the same view."

all over the internet and some self-proclaimed buddhist gurus use the attutide of selflessness and it's related condition of emptiness to put their own brand of "buddhism" which is really ascensionism in disguise.

some use it to claim that buddhism does not acknowledge the existence of soul, some the importance of a sense of self, others - strangely - use it to enforce the existence of a "higher self", a self outside of ourselves which is supposedly connected with god or more spiritual advanced.

lets look at this last one first. note the bolded text in the excerpt above - not only did they teach that the self exists, they held that it exists independent of the mind and the body. while some 'teachers' and cults are quite happy to claim the opposite to one of the most fundamental buddhist teachings and still claim to be buddhists, the dalai lama clearly has a different idea of what his faith holds to. quoted from page 92 -

"there is no "I" that can be pointed out as an entity separate from the ;mind-body complex, not only that: if you carefully think about it, an "I" separate from mind and body would involve many contradictions. in addition, our own experiences show there is no such "I". Also, even if it may seem to our mind that there is an "I" that is within our mind and body, but is their controller like a head salesperson among salespersons, that also does not exist. therefore, in brief, the "I" cannot be found when subjected to investigation, yet it undeniably exists, as when we consider self and other; hence the self, or "I" is merely set up as a construct in dependence upon mind and body."

in other words, it is natural to have a sense of self. but buddhism does not support the notion of a separate or "higher" self. you might say that this contradicts with what was said on page 3, but look again.

buddha's belief and teachings opposes the notion that a self existed separate to the physical form; a belief which he termed as "selflessness", as in this separate self which some believed to exist did not.

there is just so much out there written and told by people who are not practising buddhists but who parade themselves as "experts" that i consider the book becoming enlightened by his holiness, the dalai lama to be invaluable to anyone who wishes to understand more about buddhism.

in ascensionism, in every way the ego is considered a "bad thing". love god, be humble - or belittle yourself - for you are not great and anyway, he doesnt speak to the masses. he has spokesmen for that. be humble, express humility and don't ask questions that might be awkward to answer. blind faith is better. it doesn't require thinking. an ingnorant mass is easier to control, which is the whole point of the exercise. and when you 'god' is a living person, then the above attitude makes you an unquestioning slave. ascensionism is, after all, about social control.

however this particular ascended master, "master jesus", goes so far as to describe the ego as some kind of parristic alien, with a somewhat limited but self-serving, conniving intelligence all of its own...