Advertisement
So far I'm deep into the Introduction of 'The Enneagram' by Helen Palmer (given to me most fortuitously by the Sensei Mango Man)... and I was struck by something most beautiful :
the deeper connection with nature that we have fleeting moments with (or, for those who are luckier, longer moments with) where we feel connected with the higher Self, takes us back to when we were very young children when we were unable to differentiate between 'me' and 'not me'. That place of freedom where the ego hadn't started to build buffers was a place which shared everything and everybody around it as if it were 'me'.
This struck such a chord with me because it seemed to explain how we are able to have these moments of deep connection with people/nature.
However!! When we were this young was this behaviour not completely egocentric??? We were unable to disassociate ourselves from everything else in the world therefore we assumed that everything = 'me'. Is this not total egocentrism?
the deeper connection with nature that we have fleeting moments with (or, for those who are luckier, longer moments with) where we feel connected with the higher Self, takes us back to when we were very young children when we were unable to differentiate between 'me' and 'not me'. That place of freedom where the ego hadn't started to build buffers was a place which shared everything and everybody around it as if it were 'me'.
This struck such a chord with me because it seemed to explain how we are able to have these moments of deep connection with people/nature.
However!! When we were this young was this behaviour not completely egocentric??? We were unable to disassociate ourselves from everything else in the world therefore we assumed that everything = 'me'. Is this not total egocentrism?
posted by:
|
London
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Innocent truths or egocentrism?
Wed, October 26, 2005 - 12:15 PMStar, I think you are asking a VERY important and insightful question. And it depends upon your culture and orientation as to how it is answered.
Developmentally, children learn to distinguish what is me and not me. It is a way of understanding oneself and the "outside" world, and some would argue a necessary task in development. However, from a Buddhist perspective, I do not exist because there is no I, only all - which is nothing, and everything. Ysautani said that "the fundamental delusion of reality is to suppose that I am here and you are out there."
Perhaps our longing for a meaningful spirituality (however we define it) is because on a very primal level we are ONE, yet flesh (or the illusion of flesh) or the illusion of division must be overcome. Does that make any sense or do I just sound whacked out?
Does not all spirituality seek to unite us with something "outside" ourselves and necessarily larger than we are? (That's not rhetorical, BTW!) We long for that which gives us a sense of place and belonging...because (?) we have been programmed/trained/socialized/incarnated to perceive separation.
Let me know what you think about this. What a cool conversation.
D. -
-
Re: Innocent truths or egocentrism?
Wed, October 26, 2005 - 7:43 PMI agree with both of your thoughts. By viewing everything as "me", you are identifying with the material world and locating yourself in a certain place and time, and thus possessing an egocentric view of the world. I understand the ability to access your Higher Self as a higher stage in consciousness--more transcendent than identifying with everything. Once you are able to release, you can transcend to further understanding, which eventually may lead to an understanding that "you" have no solid/physical/time-space existance. You are beyond that.
However, I wouldn't necessarily say spirituality is a search for something "outside" us as much as something "more", grander, more whole/complete. At least it's that way with my spirituality. Meaning doesn't necessarily come from outside. It can be within and just needing to be accessed. Of course that's a spatial analogy. Maybe that's not even an accurate way of describing such an abstract concept?
An aspect of the Enneagram deals with fixations--getting "stuck" at one of the earlier stages, which hampers growth towards your Higher Self and ultimate knowing.
Yes, it is a cool, deep conversation.
Vicki : ) -
-
Re: Innocent truths or egocentrism?
Fri, October 28, 2005 - 12:04 PMPerhaps using the over-used phrase "outside of oneself" didn't convey the totality of what I was trying to say. It is such a pain, this hindrance called language!!!
I think that there is Other, but ultimately it is also Same. You are Other to me, but you are also Same to me. I am both Other and Same to you. Sometimes the only way we realize this is by experiencing the Otherness of someone and through that coming to a clearer definition/understanding of Self.
Clear as mud?! -
-
Re: Innocent truths or egocentrism?
Sat, October 29, 2005 - 9:05 AMNo, that seems clear to me (until I try to explain it and expound on it). Other and Same are one. It is a matter of perspective. It is difficult to understand your Self in isolation. The "Other" is needed as a mirror/observer for your Self. Of course ultimately from another perspective, the Other is the Same, so you're still your Self observing your Self and not Other relaying a separate view on Self. Gets a little tricky sometimes doesn't it? -
-
Re: Innocent truths or egocentrism?
Sat, October 29, 2005 - 2:53 PMThe Self isn't hindered by space and time - it is everything - the same person you were when you were born and the same person you will be when you're 90. It's constant.
That's why this picture of the 'child' in us feeling that nature is all encompassing and a part of us is so beautiful, because it's a reminder that it is possible to feel this, without the shackles of the ego, as an adult human in touch with Self. -
-
Re: Innocent truths or egocentrism?
Tue, November 1, 2005 - 9:28 AMOk, Star, is what you are saying is that there is our Self which is static and it is the overlayment of experience that we experience as "life"?
I think I agree with that in part; that there are certain constants that are unchanging that define me as Me. However, if the Self is unchanging what purpose is there in life? Why would we need to undertake this process? Why would we be sentient if not to experience and change both inside and outside? -
-
Re: Innocent truths or egocentrism?
Wed, November 2, 2005 - 5:10 AMI believe that to live 'in constant' with the higher Self is only nearly reached if you live as a 'devotee' and choose 'contentment' over the highs and lows and ups and downs of happiness and sadness and the rollercoster of life. It is a lifetime's devotion and not for everyone! Even then it would be impossible to live in complete Self without the mind / ego naturally interfering!
-
-
-
-
-
-
