New Age "One" Belief = Spiritual Borg?

reply to post by Tryptych


Exactly, from your point of view. You do realise there are a great number of estoric traditions and quite a few of them are very different than what you believe? I am not trying to say you are wrong *though I will honestly state I think you are* but merely pointing something out. You look at individualism as ego and bad, something that must be shrugged off. But, the entire of your comments was simply a different point of view on the same thing. I personally stand not at your view point as I embrace individuality as not necessarily a bad thing. And I am well versed in the occult thank you very much.

[edit on 22-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Check out the edits in the previous post:

Stepping out of the ego is not "against individualism". Quite the opposite.

reply to post by Tryptych


Um, sorry but wrong.

Main Entry: ego
Pronunciation: \ˈē-(ˌ)gō also ˈe-\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural egos
Etymology: New Latin, from Latin, I — more at i
Date: 1789
1 : the self especially as contrasted with another self or the world
2 a : egotism 2 b : self-esteem 1
3 : the one of the three divisions of the psyche in psychoanalytic theory that serves as the organized conscious mediator between the person and reality especially by functioning both in the perception of and adaptation to reality — compare id, superego

— ego·less adjective

SOURCE:www.merriam-webster.com...

Main Entry: ego
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: personality
Synonyms: character, psyche, self, self-admiration, self-pride, selfdom

SOURCE:thesaurus.reference.com...

Main Entry: self
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: being
Synonyms: character, ego, egocentrism, identical, identity, individual,

individuality,

individualization, myself, narcissism, oneself, own, person, personal, personality, proprium, psyche, selfhood, substantive
Antonyms: other

SOURCE:thesaurus.reference.com...

As I said before, I do not believe that giving up my individuality is necessary or desirable.



[edit on 22-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


You still have no idea what I'm talking about here?

Whatever, this is going nowhere.

reply to post by Tryptych


Enlighten me then? Because you say we must shrug off our "ego" and I was merely pointing out what that word means and how it contradicts when you say that doesn't mean our individuality. I am very curious how you can claim I don't understand. Or is that I am supposed to understand individualised definitions from a viewpoint I don't agree with?

But if you insist on copping out, I do wish you a good day.

[edit on 22-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Like most arguments on ATS this too is an argument based on the ignorance of the Definitions various posters are using.

Traditional spiritual and eastern paths have a different definition of EGO than western dictionary definitions of EGO. So when the other poster says "Ego" she means something different.

In general there is no doubt that some new-age-cults interpret loss of the ego as loss of individuality. But that is not the interpretation of more authentic sources such as sanskrit or buddhist scripture.



[edit on 22-10-2009 by Skyfloating]

A wave does not loose its "self" it merely notices it was never seperate from the ocean in the first place.

I did occult studies that insisted that we give up the ego too.
It gave me a bad case of cognitive dissonance.

Some of those Eastern disciplines have people sitting for hours trying to lose themselves to become lost/joined to the source.

Seems to me that our individual ego is the highest expression of that "source". I hold that the "prime directive" of the Universe is to Create perpetually and never return to any perceived "source".
Such return would be a limiting action.

The only real truth is you live in your own world, thats all you know, period.

This one stuff is rubbish, and icke makes me laugh when he talks about it as fact.

Prince charles and his orgasms for trees does not mean your 1 with a cabbage.

Originally posted by OhZone
I did occult studies that insisted that we give up the ego too.
It gave me a bad case of cognitive dissonance.

Same here. That's usually how I know something works. It won't stop bothering me until I resolve it.

Some of those Eastern disciplines have people sitting for hours trying to lose themselves to become lost/joined to the source.

You know it.

Seems to me that our individual ego is the highest expression of that "source".

Only if you are willing and able to throw it away, to demonstrate that you are really MORE than that. If you can't realize yourself apart from your ego then you aren't anything BUT an ego, a face, a mask. And that is what you will be until you die. Then it will be forcibly removed from you.

Double-post. I blame that damned link to the ATS news thing on either side of the actual forum. Whoever decided to put it there was a genius for drawing attention to it but I'll be damned if I can't avoid clicking it inadvertently 200 times after I've already watched it.

[edit on 22-10-2009 by bsbray11]

reply to post by OhZone


What those kinds of practices miss is that "the ego" is part of the ONE as well. So trying to "get rid of it" is a path to failure. Integration is better than Negation.

"The Ego" is merely ones tendency to focus on the physical world exclusively. The polar opposite is to focus on the spiritual exclusively. Neither path is healthy.

Oh great, as if worrying about burning in hell for eternity wasn't stressful enough.

I heard Whitley Streiber say on the Art Bell show a long time ago, "When you die, don't go into the light. It's a trick! Go into the darkness."

John Lear also mentioned that our souls don't go to heaven after death, but "processed" by ETs and spat back out onto the earth.


Their words will haunt me 'til the my dying day. And a little bit longer after that!

Originally posted by OhZone
William Bramley has this to say in "Gods of Eden":

"The above discussion suggests that many popular ideas about “God” may be inaccurate. For example, some people with “near-death” experiences report going through a tunnel and meeting a “being of light” which instills in the near-death victim feelings of love and “all-knowing.” I met a man who belonged to a Hindu sect which attempts to contact and merge with this “being of light” in its meditations. The man wrote a paper describing his personal experiences. His descriptions of spiritually traveling down a “tunnel” and meeting a “being of light” are very similar to the statements of near-death victims. While I acknowledge the importance and probable reality of many such experiences, I question some of the beliefs which have arisen from them.

The feelings of “love” and “all-knowing” conveyed by that “being” can be instilled by drugs, electronic emanations, and by other artificial means. Interestingly, some UFO abductees have reported such emotions during their alleged examinations aboard UFOs. In some of those UFO cases, the surrounding evidence strongly suggests that the feelings were caused by an electronic device used as a sedative. Whatever the near-death “being of light” might be (and I will not even try to guess), it is most assuredly not a Supreme Being. It may even be an object that contributes to post-death spiritual amnesia.

People should not be counseled to “merge with” or “go to” the “being of light” during meditation or at death. They should stay away from it if they can. In saying this, I do not mean to deny the otherwise positive and profound feelings experienced by some Hindus and near-death victims as a result of temporarily re-experiencing their spiritual immortality. What are we then to think of the idea of a Supreme Being sitting in “judgment” on the beings of Earth? "

Emphasis mine. The above appears about half way down the page.
It is now an E-book at this site.

Gods of Eden

Originally posted by diabolique
I heard Whitley Streiber say on the Art Bell show a long time ago, "When you die, don't go into the light. It's a trick! Go into the darkness."

John Lear also mentioned that our souls don't go to heaven after death, but "processed" by ETs and spat back out onto the earth.

Pure disinformation from Strieber and Lear. After death, disregard intellectualization and go with the heart.

reply to post by Skyfloating


I would argue that we are not a wave in form or function.

reply to post by OhZone


Agreed. I am of the opinion that if "oneness" was necessary there would be less individuality, we do have ties and they do bind us in our current form. And I would never argue against that. But my view is it's just one path amongst many *returning to source*, works and is good the ultimate expression of their beliefs while an idea of "Hell" for others.

Originally posted by OhZone
I did occult studies that insisted that we give up the ego too.
It gave me a bad case of cognitive dissonance.

Some of those Eastern disciplines have people sitting for hours trying to lose themselves to become lost/joined to the source.

Seems to me that our individual ego is the highest expression of that "source". I hold that the "prime directive" of the Universe is to Create perpetually and never return to any perceived "source".
Such return would be a limiting action.

Not if you are stuck in a human body, then you are quite limited.

Have you read any gnostic works?

I believe that when you are part of Source you are still "you", you are "you", G-D, the guy down the street, etc. all at the same time with awareness. You don't lose "you" you become more.

reply to post by A Fortiori


Thus you are no longer you the individual. Collectivism no matter how you package it is still collectivism.

[edit on 22-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by A Fortiori

 

Thus you are no longer you the individual. Collectivism no matter how you package it is still collectivism.

[edit on 22-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Not true. If you retain all of your memories, all of "you", as well as, having "more" you may be part of a collective but you are an individual in the collective, as well. The borg queen was an individual and the collective.

reply to post by A Fortiori


But that was not all of Borgdom *

*. Either way, shall we agree to disagree? As I do respect you though we don't see eye to eye.