Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Greenslade
I guess that depends on your perspective. From a Gestalt Reality perspective the sum of the parts isn't just greater than the whole but a 'new' being, and the ego is as much a part of that Gestalt Reality as anything else. When does denial and/or a cognitive disorder become Spirituality? The irony is that it's the ego as a self-entity that wears the label, chooses the definition and rejects what is not compatible with the thought processes.
|
I recently inherited a cat from a sick relative. From the start it was obvious that she had a very distinct personality and I’m certain that she has some semblance of a sense of self. She can clearly access memory and some kind of sense of history for functional purposes. I put in a cat flap and she got the hang of it in days. She wanders far from our garden but knows/remembers where she lives. She knows her name. She favours my wife over me as she is the one who feeds her. And yet it’s clear to me that she lives totally in the present. The memory that she does access is a
present arising for present purposes.
What she clearly does not carry around is a narrative upheld, self-image - an extended story about herself and her life - the aberration of a thinking-derived, happened self.
This brings to mind a wonderful quote by Eckhart Tolle after his shift in perception:
“I didn’t know at the time that what really happened was the mind-made self, with its heaviness, its problems, that lives between the unsatisfying past and the fearful future, collapsed. It dissolved. The next morning I woke up and everything was so peaceful. The peace was there because there was no self. Just a sense of presence or "being-ness," just observing and watching.”
I resonate strongly with this and it’s clear as to what he’s indicating. But if someone were to be pedantic here they could insist that some semblance of a self structure must remain. It’s probably safe to surmise that at the time he still knew his own name, knew where he lived and had access to his past. It’s this default remaining structure that I referred to as the ‘body-mind-individuated-matrix’ in my opening post. And it’s the inability to see the (seemingly) subtle difference here that causes confusion in spiritual circles. Highlighting this was the point of the thread in the first place.
So on to your comment: “The irony is that it's the ego as a self-entity that wears the label, chooses the definition and rejects what is not compatible with the thought processes.” Well yes, if you are referring to the body-mind-individuated-matrix. But no, if you are referring to the ‘happened/memory extended narrative self’ as indicated above and in previous posts.
That does nothing… for a very good reason.