04-10-2014, 02:35 PM
Quote:Questioner: Can you tell me how you balance the ego?
Ra: I am Ra. We cannot work with this concept as it is misapplied and understanding cannot come from it.
Quote:Questioner: Am I correct in assuming that one of the blockages [of] a mind/body/spirit complex might be due to an unbalance of, shall we say, ego, and this could be balanced using, say, a worthiness/unworthiness balance?
Ra: I am Ra. This is incorrect.
These first two quotes seem to make it apparent that the way most people use the word and concept "ego" is not a fruitful mode of consideration in the eyes of Ra. However, there are two other mentions of the word ego.
Quote:The fifth density sees the difficulties posed by the light and in this way directs entities of this vibration to the seeking of targets of opportunity such as this one. If fourth-density temptations, shall we say, towards distortion of ego, etc., are not successful the fifth-density entity then thinks in terms of the removal of light.
Here it mentions a distortion towards ego, so there is clearly a way that Ra does view ego. (This quote actually appears in session 62.20, whereas the other quotes here are 15.10-12)
Quote:The third blockage resembles most closely that which you have called ego. It is the yellow-ray or solar plexus center. Blockages in this center will often manifest as distortions towards power manipulation and other social behaviors concerning those close and those associated with the mind/body/spirit complex. Those with blockages in these first three energy centers, or nexi, will have continuing difficulties in ability to further their seeking of the Law of One.
Going back to the previous sessions again it explains what Ra considers to be ego. In this case it is a description of a blockage which "resembles" (meaning it isn't a completely accurate reference) the common concept of ego. By this I take it to mean "egotistical attitudes".
The reason I bring this up is that for some time I have noticed on the forum cases where members have accused others of "ego projection", or being "caught" in the ego, and various other ways of expressing someone being situated in an apparently egotistical standpoint. If we are to take this in the meaning of Ra then really these people are being accused of manipulation and control of other-selves. This is rather ironic to me as it seems to be the other way around.
That being said, in the Ra sense, ego does not refer to or imply the nature of one's self image, although ego may arise out of their self image. In most cases of the application of this concept someone with ego is generally labeled as someone with a sense of self-importance or who feels unique or special in some way. It is usually placed on to others who appear to be fantastical or outside the norm in their thinking, or who in some way see themselves as a potent force, whether this is expressed explicitly or not, and whether or not this is used in any attempt at superiority. While the Ra sense of ego as a yellow-ray distortion could include this, it is in no way expressed or implied that this sense of self is rooted in the ego blockage or that this sense of self must needs lead to this kind of blockage.
All that being said, just because someone views themselves in a more or less 'grandiose' light, that doesn't mean they are "stuck" in their egos. If the 'grandiose' view is used as a source of power and authority over other selves in an attempt to manipulate, then yes it could be said to be tied to ego. There is no "right" view of the self. There is awareness of the self as Creator and there is awareness of greater light, but there is no personality in and of itself which signifies a correct view of oneself. Yes, there are "less distorted" views of oneself, however at this point I have yet to ascertain any truthful way for anyone to know how distorted they are. At my most basic level of experience, it appears to me that no one really knows how "close" they are to the Creator in terms of distortion and it is the speculation as such that often leads to views of oneself holding a position in relativity to others on the factor of "truth".
All that being said and done, if you disagree with someone, look in to yourself and see where it is you disagree within yourself, with your own actions or potential ideas. When we attempt to show someone a path or reveal falsity or express truth then we are really externalizing (blue-ray) our own experiences as we have experienced them for ourselves and attempting to parallel them to the experiences of another. When we disapprove or disagree with the actions or thoughts of another, it is because we ourselves would not, at the current point, choose those actions or thoughts ourselves.
Does that mean we cannot conceive of making a choice in those directions? No, usually, by most peoples' claims, it is because certain choices have been made in the past that they now express an agreement or disagreement with a particular choice, whether thought or behaviour.
Thus, the experience one has gained is attempted to be shared with the other as an example of the results, consequences or causal patterns which have been ascertained from one's own experiences with those choices.
However, while this is often a kind offering and done in love, in many cases the experience of the self is offered to the other self without the awareness that the other self is different, and so even in the face of the same choices or same behaviour, the individual may not in any way be heading in the same direction as the self. Thus, to me, when experience is shared there should be no expectation for the other individual to perceive it in the same way that the self is perceiving it.
Now, inevitably, as each continues on their journey and ascertains more "truth" there comes to be a certain trust and comfort in one's own structure of knowledge which, in many cases, has been painstakingly put together. From that, it is almost inevitable that as individuals with different knowledge structures come together there will be disagreements and different individuals will feel they are more in line with "the truth" than those they disagree with.
I am not here to pinpoint or identify "the truth", as I would not profess to be the possessor of it. However, I am making the point that two people who equally believe they are closer to "the truth" are going in circles of redundancy by attempting to explain or ascribe the position of the other to "ego projection". When your quest is to seek falsity, you can never really find truth because instead you will look everywhere to see falsity. It is said that perhaps the truth is found by finding out what it is "not", but if the truth we are talking about is absolute then really it would seem reasonable that there is nothing that it is "not" and so attempting to find a straw of hay in a stack of hay becomes the most counter-productive exercise.
I am all for critical thinking and analysis, I do it almost obsessively in my own mind, maybe a dominant virgo trait. However, there are connotations and attitudes which I believe are tied to critical thinking that I do not believe are actually required to be so. Thinking critically isn't about mutilating everything with Occam's Razor, it's about honest assessment. If someone is truly thinking critically, in my opinion, then there will be no need for the constant red herrings and straw men, nor for fruitless comments of refutation which do not in any way work towards a greater awareness of truth or possible concepts of wisdom.
Naturally, there are going to be disagreements, that is a fact of life but before you shoot someone else down, make sure it isn't just a passing on of your own being shot down. Reason well, observe and make sound arguments but please, don't cycle the abuse.
These, obviously, are my own thoughts and philosophies and I do not expect agreement, nor disagreement really, and I am sure I have left some hypocrisies around in my post here but that is, alas, still a challenge I have with the use of language. I speak from my heart with the most genuine wisdom I can and sometimes that causes me to be more emotionally invested than I perhaps should be.
TL;DR - You are free to express yourself however you want and so is everyone else, however, consciously being aware of that fact one may attempt to approach others in a way that is not stifling or is otherwise more breathable, while still being critical and aware in your thinking. It is not critical or clear perception to put others down, to ridicule them or to stand in aloof sarcasm. These expressions are perfectly valid, by all means, but they are not, in my opinion, at all relevant to critical thinking.
Ego is about power manipulation and control in social groups. Before you analyze others, ask yourself, "What do I see as 'the truth'? What does this person see as 'the truth'? Am I interested in seeing others who see the same 'truth' that I do or new possible views of 'the truth'?" This can help to set the base tone of the conversation on a level of respect where it can be seen that each is working individually from their own views and ideas on what 'the truth' is. This, I believe, aids in integrating wisdom and compassion together because wisdom is very capable of perceiving things sharply and correctly, however, it is compassion that is the vehicle for love, and wisdom without compassion is a cold blade which cuts, uncaring.
Much love to you all, my friends.