Click here to go to the next issue.

9/2/01 Sunday

******************


JOHN METZGER
Subject: Re: [NDS] Humans Anonymous/what we mean by God

> I have this horrible feeling that someones going to start a
conversation
> about what we mean by God any minute :-)
>
> Love,
> Gary

You must have ESP, Gary...Here's a sample of 'our' names, tongue in
cheek; anyone care to add? John

The Quantum Leaper.
Being-Becoming-Itself.
The Subject that Encompasses All Predicates.
The Great Whomever or Whatever that is Within-Without-Beside-Before-
After-and-During.
The Verb that Activates all Other Verbs.
The Cosmic DNA.
The Erotic Whole.
The Source from Whom All Longing Flows.
The Black Hole Where Love Embraces Death.
The Creative Destroyer.
The Alpha and Omega Helix.
The Eternal Not Yet.
The Creating.
The Sustaining.
The Abiding without End.
The mating of Dan Berkow and Christiana Durancyzk.
The The of things.
The Etc. to end all Etc.'s.
Etc.



> The mating of Dan Berkow and Christiana Durancyzk.

Are you saying God is two crazy kids in the back seat of an Oldsmobile? (Jerry)

(Admit it, Jerry, this is as close to heaven as you are ever likely to
get!)Gloria






NEW HAVEN, CT—In a diagnosis that helps explain the confusing and contradictory aspects of
the cosmos that have baffled philosophers, theologians, and other students of the human condition
for millennia, God, creator of the universe and longtime deity to billions of followers, was found
Monday to suffer from bipolar disorder.


http://www.theonion.com/onion3716/god_diagnosed_bipolar.html


JERRY on yawning, hiccups, resistance to hypnosis, and....

Fascinating. Thank you. And how about the really fun uncontrollable laughing while
in the 'place of worship'? I love that one. I remember about 25 years ago attending
a cousin's Bar Mitzvah. I was sitting next to my brother Rick and we were getting
the giggles -- then I happened to look back and to the side and there was my staid,
conservative, corporate Uncle. We met with a twinkling of the eye and in an instant
he fell apart barely able to contain his laughter. Tears came down his cheeks. And
the laughter had to be contained because we were all standing and the Rabbi was
uttering some sacred prayer. The laugher comes from the same place as the hiccups
and yawns, except that it's more fun. But, boy, I'd've given anything to see my
uncle with giggles and hiccups at the same time.

Jerry


MELODY * GENE POOLE

>It has not been my experience that ego is decommissioned in
>a trance state.
>
>Rather, it is more as if the ego agrees to simply 'sit back
>and watch'.........to allow the experience to unfold. However,
>time and time again, I have found that the ego does re-assert
>itself when it senses danger.

Yes, I see this as generally true.

As a hypnotist, have you ever induced such a deep trance,
that obedience was immediate and without resistance? Or
have you ever been present while such a trance was induced?

I have seen... and noticed, I guess I should say, that
a skilled hypnotist is able to induce 'first level' trance,
and then 'take over' the 'ego' again, thus to enable an
even deeper trance. These steps can be repeated a
number of times, to the effect that the subject appears
and behaves exactly like a 'catatonic schizophrenic',
with 'waxy flexibility'.

Perhaps there was something of this attempted
in the scenario below:

>Twice while in a trance state, my ego has stepped in
>and ended the session......once, while in a very deep
>trance, when the hypnotist began 'sculpting' a very
>sexually charged scenario.

Naughty hypnotist! Bad hypnotist!
Good tools in bad hands make for ugly creations.

>As a hypnotherapist, I have witnessed this ego-assertion
>many times in clients.....when the client is 'looking at'
>hidden or denied aspects of the psyche. The ego knows
>when "enough is enough", and the client may simply 'open
>their eyes'... or, most usually, begin to shift about until the
>trance is broken.

Yes.

>
>
> >
> > If those requirements are met, the voice of the hypnotist literally
>'becomes'
> > the 'inner voice' of the hypnotized one.
>
>It is much like that.
>
>In a trance state the hypnotized one no longer makes a distinction
>between oneself and the hypnotist. For those moments, they
>are 'one'.....the hypnotist's voice becomes 'my' voice.....what
>a hypnotist sees, 'I' see....what a hypnotist says, "I" am saying.
>
>But a lot is written about hypnosis and trance....as if it is an evil
>to
>be avoided. And while I agree that abuses do, and have occurred,
>the opportunitys for expanding awareness thru trance experience
>is so great, I feel compelled to offer another perspective on
>hypnosis and trance.

I do not harbor bad feelings about hypnosis. Or marijuana, either.
Nor do I abhor guns. These are all just things. Humans do what
humans do, with these things. Responsible behaviour, VS
destructive behaviour, which will it be? This is the real issue.

>
>I was fortunate to be trained in what is referred to as
>a 'client centered' approach to hypnotherapy....which
>says that it is the client who has the answers and
>solutions they seek....and it is the client....not the
>therapist... who knows the 'way'. And that it is
>simply the fascilitator's task to simply bring that
>inner-knowing to the client's awareness.

Yes.

>The hardest part of my job was always
>remembering to 'get out of the way'
>of the clients experience......to not contaminate
>it with my sense of what 'should' happen....and
>not to try to 'figure things out'....but to simply
>walk alongside them as helper...as one who
>helps the experiencer to open to....to 'notice'
>what is unfolding for them to see.

Yes. To allow this generation to take place, this
unfoldment of what has been compacted and
hidden in the client. Eventually to conduct in
such a way, as to create the conditions in which
the divorced aspects of the client may reunite;
full empowerment.

>Hypnotherapy was, for me, a training ground
>to 'awakening' - it was a practice in abiding...
>of dropping any and all self-referencing
>thoughts.....and surrendering to whatever
>unfolds.

Yes. I see well-done hypnotherapy as
re-enabling of a long-stifled conversation.

>I'm thinking of how many times people would
>come to these sessions as atheists or agnostics,
>and leave in a sense of awe.....seeing that there
>is 'That' which is so much more than 'me'...more than.
>my sense of 'me'.....
>
>even if 'That' is known to them as simply the
>Unconscious.
>
>
>Melody

Indeed. Seeing that we have not seen,
even if we cannot see what we do not
see, is to know that we have overlooked
something very vital.

Thanks, Melody...


==Gene Poole==




PAUL

Just to finish up on this... When the original AA's were asked about
God Concept they replied...

why don't you choose your own concept of God?

what they found important was one had to have a Power greater than
their selves (egos). The basic idea is if you need help, any concept
of God will do for starters. (you really want help so you don't
bargain in concepts) Afterwards, when you come into relationship,
realize or know God, then you won't have to worry about God concepts
anymore.


But the book that Humans Anonymous came from "The Game of God" by
Arthur B. Hancock & Kathleen J. Brugger has a glossary with a
definition of God as follows:

God: Being, free of a survival identity; the absolute awareness of
absolute reality, SYN. truth, love and experience.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HumansAnonymous/join



Here is an excerpt from the Big Book of AA pp 56 & 57

This man recounts that he tumbled out of bed to his knees. In a few
seconds he was overwhelmed by a conviction of the Presence of God.
It poured over and through him with the certainty and majesty of a
great tide at flood. The barriers he had built through the years
were swept away. He stood in the Presence of Infinite Power and
Love. He had stepped from bridge to shore. For the first time, he
lived in conscious companionship with his Creator...............

............................... skipping some ....

What is this but a miracle of healing? Yet its elements are simple.
Circumstances made him willing to believe. He humbly offered himself
to his Maker---Then he knew.

Even so has God restored us all to our right minds. To this man, the
revelation was sudden. Some of us grow into it more slowly. But He
has come to all who have honestly sought Him.

When we drew near to Him, He disclosed Himself to us!

GARY MERRILL

They've recently been reshowing on TV a series of classic black and white
interviews that the BBC did (in the fifities I think) with famous people.
The first of their kind. One of them was with Carl Jung, and the interviewer
asks him if he believes in God and Jung looks back and says 'I don't believe
in God, I know God'.


GENE POOLE on EGO

NDS

Various definitions of 'ego':

Ego \E"go\, n. [L., I.] (Met.)

The conscious and permanent subject of all psychical
experiences, whether held to be directly known or the product
of reflective thought; -- opposed to non-ego.



A brief discussion of how we are tripped by assumptions as to the
meaning of the word 'ego':

<http://www.astrologyforthesoul.com/whatisego.html>



A much deeper appreciation of what is ego, with commentary on what
goes horribly wrong, and why; highly recommended:

<http://www.sieb.org/iat/split.htm>


Here is a well-done essay, in Q/A form, as to the nature of ego, from
the perspective of NLP. It goes into a discussion of nonduality, and
includes links to several contributing authors, including Ramana
Maharshi:

<http://www.4dportal.com/issue2/josephkao.htm>


Here is a discussion that dares suggest 'becoming post-ego':

<http://www.doctorhugo.org/post-ego/post-ego.html>


A deep look at the central problems associated with 'ego':

<http://joy2meu.com/SelfWorth.htm>


Now for my own way of seeing this 'issue of ego':


_1 It is utterly futile, but seemingly virtuous, to denigrate 'ego'.

People persist in assuming that... 'there is a problem'. As long
as such assumptions persist, 'solutions' will be assumed also.

The people who persist in assuming that... 'there is a problem',
know NO other reality. This class of person is utterly oblivious to
any reality but their own 'problem-centered' experience.

Typically,the class of problem-centered individuals are also
found to be grouped in the class of 'persons who are chronically alienated'.

The problem-centered, chronically-alienated person, knows no other
reality. To be perfectly clear about this state of affairs, I will say that
'problem-people' do not have the slightest clue that they are partitioned
against what is a much greater (larger) 'reality'.

The real zinger here is that when a 'problem person' digs into
the perceived 'problems', they are not doing anything at all. They are
mining for gold in an air-mine. They are simply 'shuffling shit' into
one configuration after another. They are looking for solutions to
non-existent problems, and because they apply cures for what is
no disease, their treatments result in nothing but side-effects.

However, even in the deepest and chronic involvement in the above
conundrum, the 'problem-person' cannot see beyond the extent of
the assumption that 'there is a problem'. This dilemma is intensified
(and to a large extent created by) the application of 'remedy' to what
is no issue/disease/dilemma/problem, leading to more stress, and
the creation of a 'real problem'. Yet, even this 'real problem' is not
a problem. There is no problem.

The issue is the obliviousness of one class of person, to the reality
that there is an entirely different class of person. If somehow we
could create a bridge between these two classes, each would be
deeply shocked to see the depth and extent of the other class:

Class: Chronically alienated

Class: Non-alienated

The non-alienated (generally) does not have a clue as to the existence
of the entire class of alienated Beings. The chronically alienated have
lost, if they have ever had, any alignments which would serve as a road
of return to 'non-alienation'.

You may be asking: "Why this discussion, and what is the relevance to 'ego'?

Simply, that discussions of 'ego as problem' occur as remedy-seeking
among the class of chronically alienated 'problem-people', and thus are
entirely moot. This is compounded by the actuality of 'side-effects'
produced by applications of 'remedy' for perceived 'problems' which are
in fact nonexistent, but which remedies actually introduce problematic
elements which intensify stress, and thus tend to redouble 'problem-solving
behaviour', which redoubles 'remedy application', which redoubles
'problem-solving, ad infinitum in an endless and ever-intensifying loop
of absurd proportions.

Perhaps the most ridiculous of these classical tail-chasing, self-perpetuating
and cyclic vortexes of perpetual distraction, is the 'ego-defined ego-problem'
syndrome, in which 'what is defined as the problem, itself defines
the problem'.

In the above, we can see that... 'ego is a self-defining problem'.

Pretty wild, eh?

***

But to hell with all of that circular logic. There is a better way to
see the whole show!

Let us simply redefine 'ego' as it is used in this thread, as
instead, 'identity'.

Let us define 'ego' in a way that respects the western POV:

Ego is simply the psychic aspect of the immune system.

Thus, ego defends identity. Simple, eh?

So ego is NOT identity; 'that' definition of ego is the fault of
poorly translated eastern texts imported to the west, via the
Beatniks.

Ego is simply 'membrane intelligence' at work in the psyche; "I" vs "Not-I".

If "I" is identity, ego defends identity.

If "I" is NOT identity, ego is at rest.

It is the ultimate foolishness to desire to disarm ego; one could as
well wish for 'psychic AIDS'.

Please... consider replacement of 'ego' with 'identity', when that is
the actual implication of how the word is being used in (a given)
context.

Use 'ego' if the basic life-preserving aspect of the psyche is being
referred to.

"I" as identity is called 'identification'. When "I" am not
identified, no defense is called in regard to (what are otherwise
interpreted as) threats to identity.

If 'ego' defends 'identity', we have a corruption of the human system
to deal with.

And that is not that difficult to deal with.

Crude analogies:

Ego = mechanism

Identity = what that mechanism harbors


Ego = tape recorder machine

Identity = what is on the tape


Ego = aspect of hardware

Identity = resident software


Ego = force

Identity = criteria which decides use of force


Ego works like skin or membrane; identity is what has gotten under
your skin. Ego defends identity because it identifies identity as an
aspect of self; identity is behind that defensive lines.

Ego does not make mistakes, but it can become disordered. The primary
source of ego disorder is identity.

You can see that my own understanding of this stuff is at great
variance with 'current protocols'. So be it.


==Gene Poole==


PAUL

on images and how it relates to the practice of Zen (Non Dual
Meditation)

IMAGES
by Charlotte Joko Beck


Most religions have something to say about images and how we hold
them in our lives. 'Thou shalt have no other Gods before me...'.
Yasutani Roshi, speaking to a student, 'You need not be concerned
about the image on the alter; you should be concerned about the image
in your mind.'

My self-centered anger arises when my image of myself is threatened.
So: what image of yourself do you hold? 'I am a kind person.' 'I am a
good parent.' 'I accomplish worthwhile things.' 'I am an authority on
(science, plants, cooking, diet, dogs ... whatever).'

Or my image can be the opposite. 'I am a mean person.' 'I am a
mediocre parent.' 'I never accomplish anything.' On and on. Our
images are deeply rooted. We love them. They run our lives. They are
who we think we are.

Some psychological therapies attempt to replace a negative image with
a positive one. Effective but only to a point. Our attachment to any
image, positive or negative--since we will defend our idol--leaves us
in the long run in a state of slavery; the idol rules our existence
and we are helpless under its domination.

All poor relationships (and their constant arguments) are based on
the defense of images. When caught in an emotional storm, ask
yourself, 'What image do I have of myself that I feel I must defend?'

Keep in mind the difference between 'I must be a good teacher (or
student, athlete, musician, therapist, or ...) and just being a good
teacher. Any defended image invariably blocks the open awareness from
which effective action springs. And the image 'I am one who sees
clearly, who has realization, who is enlightened' is itself the
barrier to true seeing. Being 'enlightened' is being without image;
undefended and open to life as it is. It is being able to feel the
pain of the desperately defended images of others. It is, of course,
compassion.

What is our practice with all this?

(1) I need to know my favorite images; and the most reliable clue to
my tendency to erect an image is bodily tension.

(2) I need to be aware of the mental and physical substance of these
images, that is, what my thoughts and bodily sensations accompanying
the image are.

(3) Finally I need to experience the pure physical sensation of my
image; I need to experience this sensation free of thoughts with
which I identify.

Sounds easy. It's not. Still, the Way is just this.

Be patient. In time our images weaken and our freedom grows.

[November 1991]

(c) 1996 by Charlotte Joko Beck

top of page