PB Quote on Mentalism taken from Wisdoms website

Talk about meditation, divine healing, and other spiritual topics

Moderator: figaro

Anubis
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 2:54 am
Location: NY
Contact:

Post by Anubis »

But doesn't that statement also imply that you are beyond those thoughts, outside them?

I do not think it does. Perhaps you could elaborate a bit further on this? Show me why it is you think it is so?

And that is a primary reason we were given an ego: so that we could think about the Higher, could think about God and the soul.

But isn't such though, without tangible proof of it's validity, entirely a creation of the ego as I stated in my earlier post??

Still: at the end of the Path one must face the soul and God directly, without the ego.

If we must face God and the Soul without the ego, then how can we possibly be judged? If the ego is what causes all of our worldly pains and suffering, then surely the actions of the ego must be taken into account to determine one's fate in the spiritual realm. If not, then what purpose does the ego serve other than that of humanity?
Anubis
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 2:54 am
Location: NY
Contact:

Post by Anubis »

Thank you for posting those new quotes, Figaro. Unfortunately, I only have enough time to answer one of them at the moment.

This one I think you will especially like, Anubis (From: The Notebooks of Paul Brunton, Volume Six, the Ego; Larson Publications): :

"The importance he gives his own ego is not baseless. It derives, if traced to the deepest ground, from the Overself. He has misplaced his true identity, but the false one is not entirely so."

Paul Brunton coined the term "Overself". In his volumes, the meaning of the term changes: mainly it seems to connote the soul - but at other times it seems to almost mean the Divine Itself, God. Since the soul and God are in some mysterious way linked, PB seems to leave the meaning of Overself a bit ambiguous.


The underlined bit of text has me a bit confused. I'm not entirely sure what he is trying to say with "but the false one is not entirely so.".

"The importance he gives his own ego is not baseless. It derives, if traced to the deepest ground, from the Overself...."

This part particularly intrigued me as bearing striking resemblance with Nietzsche's idea of the Übermensch, often referred to as Superman or Overman. It appears that what Brunton has done is to take Nietzsche's ideas and re-apply them to the spiritual realm. The use of his term "Overself" was what caught my eye and drew attention to the concept of the Overman. Is there a place where I could view Brunton's work on the internet?? I am most interested to see how he's worked this idea into the spiritual realm.
Anubis
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 2:54 am
Location: NY
Contact:

Post by Anubis »

Unfortunately I have other matters to attend to at the moment and must leave. I will return later to finish my thoughts on our current discussion.
figaro
Posts: 535
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:45 am
Location: Ithaca, NY
Contact:

Hello Anubis!

Post by figaro »

Hello Anubis! Let me clarify: When I say that memory, imagination, will etc. are powers of the soul - that does not mean we can consciously access these powers of the soul.
figaro
Posts: 535
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:45 am
Location: Ithaca, NY
Contact:

re destruction

Post by figaro »

Hmm ... I fail to see your logic. Could you say this a different way?

The idea that I meant to convey was the fact that, things evolve through destruction, it is an inevitable fact. Sometimes beings and events evolve through destruction - othertimes they are just destroyed. Or do not evolve. Moreover, those beings who are destroyed - have little chance to evolve. I would not say destruction is the only way to evolve. In fact I would say there are far better ways ...
figaro
Posts: 535
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:45 am
Location: Ithaca, NY
Contact:

anger vs Justice

Post by figaro »

The soul has the Power of Emotion. However, the soul gives us the higher octaves of the human emotions: Justice instead of anger; True Compassion instead of mere sympathy or empathy; the Higher Love instead of hatred, or personal love with attachment and so on. I would say that the compassion and love that you are speaking of come from the soul itself, which is in some mysterious way connected to the Divine Itself.

But does anger not spur the desire for justice? Are not empathy and sympathy required to feel compassion? These things are just as much a matter of humanity as they are of the soul. Good points, and your thinking is clear. Yes I agree: first we must learn sympathy and empathy before we can even dream of reaching True Compassion. Yes, anger can spur us on to the desire for Justice: but it can also spur us on to a lower form of justice, one that is self-centered and ignorant of truth. However, I do agree that first we must learn how to personally love, before we can even dream of attaining the Higher Love. Our human hearts and feelings are the Doorway to the Higher octaves of the human emotions placed in the soul. However: the personal emotions, such as sympathy, empathy, personal love with attachment: all these personal emotions also open the Door to all the lower passions. Personal love can easily flip to anger, even hatred. Personal sympathy and empathy can turn to antipathy or even hatred - or can allow others to continue to harm themselves and others. Only the Higher Emotions can truly help us and the world. The lower emotions, even the more seemingly positive ones, can easily flip to the negative emotions. And the negative emotions always carry a huge price; they will always lead to suffering, both to ourselves and to others.
figaro
Posts: 535
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:45 am
Location: Ithaca, NY
Contact:

The idea of soul

Post by figaro »

I would like to go on record here, before we delve too much deeper into this, and say that I do not believe in the idea of a soul. In my view, humans are egos because the soul is a product of it and, subsequently, everything else (spiritual) that has been created by the mind of man.

Well thank you for your honesty. Although, this could make our discussions a bit more difficult ...

Hmm. In your view: the ego produces the soul and all that is spiritual in us. That is an interesting view. Although, not unheard of. The definition of 'ego' I am working with = all our thoughts, which then lead to emotions. Is that also your definition? I have a question for you: do you believe in pure Consciousness = a field of Consciousness, and within that field of greater Consciousness our individual thoughts then arise? I probably did not say that very well ... I have another question for you: who created the mind of man?
figaro
Posts: 535
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:45 am
Location: Ithaca, NY
Contact:

adieu for now

Post by figaro »

Unfortunately I have other work to finish, but I will return. Thank you for these fine discussions.
Anubis
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 2:54 am
Location: NY
Contact:

Hi Figaro!!

Post by Anubis »

Hello Anubis! Let me clarify: When I say that memory, imagination, will etc. are powers of the soul - that does not mean we can consciously access these powers of the soul.

But those powers of the soul are exhibited exactly and mirrored precisely in the mind. Those abilities exist in the same time and place that the ego and id do, that's what adds moral weight to anything we do. Without that, the soul would just simply have us do what was always right without having to suffer the consequence of failure, i.e. - the ability to learn and grow.

Sometimes beings and events evolve through destruction - othertimes they are just destroyed. Or do not evolve. Moreover, those beings who are destroyed - have little chance to evolve. I would not say destruction is the only way to evolve. In fact I would say there are far better ways ...

Unfortunately, I have to stand my ground on this point. Destruction is the primary catalyst for evolution, history has shown that to be abundantly clear. In the sense of living creatures, every living thing on the planet today exists because they proved strong enough, resistant enough, to withstand the brutality of evolution. The world, even by todays "civilized" standards, often boils down to the simple concept of Darwin's "Survival of the Fittest" idea. Everything from insects to humans to society to Empires are governed by this simple rule. The ability of a species to survive and carve out it's own place of existence in the world relies entirely on their ability to either withstand the harsh nature of the world that surrounds them, or to become the dominant species through exploiting less adaptive creatures. Ruthless though it may be, this is how evolution operates, and will continue to operate, until everything ceases to exist.

However, I am interested in the idea that there are alternatives to evolution besides violence. Perhaps you could provide some examples where violence was not a catalyst for evolutionary change??
Anubis
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 2:54 am
Location: NY
Contact:

Post by Anubis »

The definition of 'ego' I am working with = all our thoughts, which then lead to emotions. Is that also your definition?

Yes. But I also believe that the ego defines our emotions as well. As we have established, the ego is a selfish entity (I can't think of a different word at the moment) and seeks to feed itself. In keeping with my belief that humans are egos, I think it is clear that all of our emotions are geared towards ourselves, even the seemingly selfless emotions of love and compassion are driven by the ego.

I have a question for you: do you believe in pure Consciousness = a field of Consciousness, and within that field of greater Consciousness our individual thoughts then arise? I probably did not say that very well

I must admit, I'm a bit lost here.

I have another question for you: who created the mind of man?

Nature and evolution created the mind of man. Man, however, has nurtured it and molded it over time into what it is today.

Our human hearts and feelings are the Doorway to the Higher octaves of the human emotions placed in the soul.

I do agree that there are higher forms of our emotions, that is evident by Freud's very definition of the Super Ego. However, I (obviously) disagree that they are the product of the soul. As you say, our own hearts are the doorways to these higher emotions. However, what is the pathway to them?? A door serves us little purpose without a path to follow once opened. For the answer to the path, we only need to look deeper into ourselves.

I feel compelled to quote a bit of Nietzsche's work here, as I think it is appropriate. From his work "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" -

"man is something which ought to be overcome"

However: the personal emotions, such as sympathy, empathy, personal love with attachment: all these personal emotions also open the Door to all the lower passions.

Indeed, the path to the higher emotions is a two way street. And if our own personal being is the path to the lower forms of our emotions, then so, too must it be the path to the higher emotions.
figaro
Posts: 535
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:45 am
Location: Ithaca, NY
Contact:

God and the soul vs the ego

Post by figaro »

And that is a primary reason we were given an ego: so that we could think about the Higher, could think about God and the soul.

But isn't such though, without tangible proof of it's validity, entirely a creation of the ego as I stated in my earlier post??

Well: no.
figaro
Posts: 535
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:45 am
Location: Ithaca, NY
Contact:

Post by figaro »

Still: at the end of the Path one must face the soul and God directly, without the ego.

If we must face God and the Soul without the ego, then how can we possibly be judged? If the ego is what causes all of our worldly pains and suffering, then surely the actions of the ego must be taken into account to determine one's fate in the spiritual realm. If not, then what purpose does the ego serve other than that of humanity?

You are correct: the ego serves itself and our humanity. But I was not speaking of judgement here. I meant that to attain the very highest State available to Man - we must leave the ego behind.

This can happen in our deepest meditations - or we can be thrown into this "egoless" state in ordinary waking state consciousness, if we are given a high mystical state to experience as the result of our prayer or meditations. In this "egoless" state, we finally meet the soul, our true Being, or Pure Consciousness (if you prefer) - or if we are very lucky perhaps even the Divine Mind Itself, or what I would call "God". I will ask you again: do you think you are merely your thoughts and emotions; or do you allow for the possibility of a greater field of true Consciousness which is also the Source of all our individual thoughts - and in which these individual thoughts first arise and then leave ... ?
figaro
Posts: 535
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:45 am
Location: Ithaca, NY
Contact:

Morality

Post by figaro »

Hello Anubis! Let me clarify: When I say that memory, imagination, will etc. are powers of the soul - that does not mean we can consciously access these powers of the soul.

But those powers of the soul are exhibited exactly and mirrored precisely in the mind. Those abilities exist in the same time and place that the ego and id do, that's what adds moral weight to anything we do. Without that, the soul would just simply have us do what was always right without having to suffer the consequence of failure, i.e. - the ability to learn and grow.

Very beautifully said.
figaro
Posts: 535
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:45 am
Location: Ithaca, NY
Contact:

?

Post by figaro »

I have another question for you: who created the mind of man?

Nature and evolution created the mind of man. Man, however, has nurtured it and molded it over time into what it is today.

Who created Nature?
figaro
Posts: 535
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:45 am
Location: Ithaca, NY
Contact:

Instead of violence ...

Post by figaro »

However, I am interested in the idea that there are alternatives to evolution besides violence. Perhaps you could provide some examples where violence was not a catalyst for evolutionary change?? There are many alternatives to evolution besides violence, and I am sure that you already know them! Self-reflection; education; a spiritual path; looking within; cultivating the higher emotions. You seem familiar with Freud: self analysis. Love. Social work, medicine, teaching ... ad infinum.

When violence was not a catalyst for evolutionary change: look at the world around you. Violence brings anger and hatred. Hatred feeds itself and causes more hatred. Hardly evolution. Man has managed to evolve in spite of his animal instincts .... Man manages to evolve only when he transcends them.
Post Reply