Written by Mathew Naismith
I thought I would share another private exchange I had with
another bloke, with his permission of course, concerning oneness being the big “I”, this of
course means we are little”I’s” of the big “I”. We also relate the big ‘”I “to being
consciousness itself or pure consciousness as well. It’s quite an interesting
exchange which brings more to light to what my last post titled
Spatiality-What’s What was about.
You might also like to visit James’s blog as well as it does
put a slightly different emphasis on what I’m about mainly because I’m a little
less educated than James obviously.
G’day James
Oneness being an “I” & as soon as we are aware of ourselves is
expressional of the ego is just a thought I had however if you would like to
fill me in more I would be so pleased to hear from you.
Mathew
Hi Mathew,
Nice to hear from
you. It's sundown on the California
coast here and I'm about to unplug from the net for the day. I'll share some thoughts on your interesting
Noetic post soon and you can let me know your thoughts.
James
Hi Mathew,
Here are a few
thoughts which I've laid along side yours.
"In our
individual human form we make many references to the ego “I”, what is oneness,
is it not also an individual therefore of the ego “I” ?
I'm thinking it would
be a Transcendent I, that qualifier lifting it above the mundane sense of
identity...
"It was said to
me, “any reference to just being an “I” is of the ego..."
...so I am an ego is
not equal to I am the Transcendent I.
"... there is
only one oneness which would have to be an “I” so this is inferring that
oneness is also of the ego."
Some esoteric
literature distinguishes these by capitalization, i.e. by using
"self" and "Self" and by using "ego" and
"Ego." In the ageless wisdom,
then, all little egos or I's or selves are relatively illusory extensions of the great Self or Identity
which is Unity. Our sense of I or
identity is derived from, borrowed so to speak, from the One Identity, and is a
reflected or vastly stepped down version of the spiritual Self. "As above, so below" (but the below
is the distant and limited echo of the "above.")
"So many people
these days make reference to either feeling at one or being at one (oneness),
seen as we only have one oneness this oneness must be an “I” which is saying
these people are being egotistical is it not or is it"
My point above is to
suggest that it would be a mistake to equate the Transcendent Self with the
little ego by using a single term for both, and most especially since a term
like "egotistical" carries the wrong baggage.
"I think the ego
goes beyond human perception; would it be, as soon as we are aware of ourselves
being at one or not we are of the ego? The very act of awareness seems to
relate to the ego"
I think it would be
more correct to say that moving toward higher awareness leads to the
transcendence of ego and the discovery that we are not the limited, isolated
and embodied self we thought, but vastly more than that.
"...but I was a vastness somehow, that in no way
contradicted or conflicted with my limited individuality... I was both my
individual self and in some greater way,
'I' was also everything." The Sound of Light, Irina Starr
Best Thoughts,
James
@ James
This is well explained & quite legible James, thank you.
All I am doing is going by my own experiences. The big “I”
isn’t of egotism but it still of the ego as soon as the big “I” became aware of
itself I feel. As soon as it became aware of itself smaller “I’s” appeared so
that the big “I” could experience itself in-depth.
I do have the understanding that the Big ”I” isn’t of time
so everything has always existed including the ego & egotism however this
doesn’t mean we have always physically existed because we are of time which has
a start & end point but everything we are experiencing has always existed in pure conscious form.
Egotism & everything else we are experiencing has always existed otherwise
it wouldn’t exist for us to express I believe but the big ”I” didn’t know of
this until it expressed itself through us. I believe it didn’t know of its own
existence until time was used to help it become aware of itself even though it
always existed. I’m not saying here that the Big “I” as opposed to us little
‘I’s” is egotistical it’s just nothing can exist without it having always
existed, egotism has always existed within the depth of the big ”I” as has
everything.
It’s a strange concept but when I go into certain conscious
states I feel what I have explained here is true however I am aware that the
human psyche can play tricks on us.
Best wishes,
Mathew
@Mathew
but everything we are
experiencing has always existed in pure
conscious form.
That rings right.
Egotism &
everything else we are experiencing has always existed otherwise it wouldn’t
exist for us to express
I'm thinking the
"everything," including "egotism," "existed in pure
conscious form" (or formlessness), but that this archetype or essence or
existing potentiality was just that, and as such, was not actually the
"formal" egotism we experience.
Spirit or divinity lives in timelessness and is absolute. Forms arise in time and are relative.
I also think that
things like egotism or selfishness, in the absolute sense, serve a divine
purpose, are part of freedom, and are a natural part of the divine play. Yet, in the relativistic sense, they
become--as we cling to them--wrong, bad, evil, or whatever word we like. It is the evolutionary, the relative, out of
which good and evil, right and wrong arise.
For a primitive man, who has little sense of ego, of identity, egotism
is good and his divinely ordained future.
For most of us however, no so much.
Best Thoughts,
James
@James
Excellent stuff
indeed. I was also thinking that the ego isn’t what we would perceive the ego
to be in pure consciousness, the ego has no form or meaning as pure
consciousness, nothing does. Time therefore beings are what give it form &
meaning which of course a lot of people couldn’t possibly comprehend because of
set ideologies sadly enough. I feel the ego is given form using time which of
course also has always existed. Time doesn’t separate, as we would presume, but
identifies portions of consciousness & creates them in individual form thus
giving ego form & meaning & of course this also goes with all human
traits/emotions even love which is also of the ego. The funny thing is we are pure conscious no
matter what portion of consciousness we are playing out.
Yes, it’s all has a
divine purpose within the game we play however being beings with attachments we
turn these traits into something sinister or encouraging & the more extreme the attachments are
the more sinister or encouraging these traits are going to be I believe. No
extremism in my mind is a good thing. The writings on the wall but very few
people can see it.
You inspired me to
write a post for my blog earlier on today which didn’t go down well at all when
I posted it unlike my previous post which I thought was in line with what I
wrote today, it just went a little further. It does however debunk a lot of
ideologies & views out there at present within the spiritual community.
If you are interested
here is the link to the said post: http://spiritualityscience.aussieblogs.com.au/2013/11/13/spirituality-whats-what/
All my blessings,
Mathew
@Mathew
If you are interested here is the link to the
said post:
http://spiritualityscience.aussieblogs.com.au/2013/11/13/spirituality-
whats-what/
I read the post in
your link. Below are some pieces on my
blog where I address many of the same issues that you were grapping with in
your post.
Best Thoughts,
James
@James
Haha, we do write
about the same thing but in a slightly different way, I'm not as educated
obviously so I will explain what you have written here in a simpler manner. I
couldn't agree more in what you have written here, good one indeed, great blog
period.
Do you mind James if I
blog what we have discussed in our emails to each other, I love to share as it
just might get the subconscious motivated in the people who read this stuff. We
are indeed about acceptance & concord with our environment it would seem
however to get people thinking outside the square one must step on some toes to
get them thinking about their discord & non-acceptance as it does affect us
all.
Av a good one,
Mathew
@Mathew
Sure, feel free to
share our exchanges...
We are indeed about
acceptance & concord
with our environment
it would seem however to get people thinking outside
the square one must
step on some toes to get them thinking about their
discord &
non-acceptance as it does affect us all.
R. W. Emerson agrees
with you:
“People wish to be
settled; only as far as they are unsettled is there any hope for them.”
J
No comments:
Post a Comment