Response to Comments About Spiritual Masters

I recently received some excellent (as in though provoking) comments from an anonymous poster in relation to my post "More Spiritual Ego Blathering" (Anonymous comments are in blue)

"Several problems with your post:"

Obviously, there are numerous problems with my post (or words) and that is inherent to my ego, but also inherent to your ego is seeing “problems.” Both perspectives certainly advance the ego’s cause, but then that's part of the game and endemic to all egos.

"1. You're dismissing all spiritual masters as false, just because egos can relate to them egoically. That is just what egos do, and doesn't necessarily say anything one way or the other about the spiritual masters and the genuineness of their offering."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is not the spiritual master considered as such for his mastery of ego, hence, 'egoless'? Nevertheless, I imagine any relating to spiritual masters is egoic, since it is the ego that relates to the world as constructed by the ego. Actually, I’m not necessarily dismissing all spiritual masters as “false” just unnecessary. I suppose one ego could provide self-development strategies to another ego. But what does that serve? Certainly not egolessness and most eastern traditions depend on that one element in the identifying of the master by the students. If the master did not convey an absence of ego, they would not be identified as master. Which is why I could never be a "master" since I don't play the game by those rules.

Nevertheless, how else are you to relate to your “master” if not egoically? What thinking brought you to the master? Is there a time, since arriving at the master, that the ego was switched off and you related in some other way? Did the master initiate this switch or did you or both? If, in fact, there was a switch in perspective, what happened to the previous egoic perspective? Was it transcended, transformed or did it simply become non-existent? (or as Ken Wilber would assert, was it “integrated”?).

"2. You're shooting down all "awakening" processes, without offering any constructive alternative for realizing egolessness."

Actually, I am offering an alternative. There is no “awakening” and there is no “egolessness.” There is a process (which I often refer to as a 'game') but it is infinite and has no destination such as egolessness or awakening or enlightenment. Of course, that is anathema to an ego invested in the “process” of annihilating itself (transcending), which ironically, serves merely as a means to further self-assertion. Assert a purpose and you are essentially imprisoned within that conceptual ideal, until you attach to another. Notice, I state this as “ideal” and not idea since the conceptualization of “awakening” is that of an ideal perfect state. Let's not deny that the ego is seeking an egoic perfect state (referred to as “awakened”) since egoic is all it knows.

Therefore, it constructs from what it knows some ideation of perfection (in fact, in many eastern philosophies there are actually levels of experiencing this perfection, as if perfection comes in levels and degrees).

Therefore, we have two concepts in one, “awakening,” and behind or within that is “perfection” as that which we seek. Every step (hypothetical) you take in asserting an ideal of perfection posits imperfection, which would be like one step forward two steps back, simply because imperfect is how the ego knows itself. In this way all spiritual paths seem to thrive by advocating an evolution to "truth," but merely continues to ask that we repeat the past.

The ego constructs all manner of concepts, which it then asserts as necessary to achieve “egolessness.’ However, what is it that seeks to be egoless?
But, that’s how the game is played. Yet, the ego is brilliant by design and constructs all manner of abstractions to further itself, like awakening, enlightenment, satori, samdhi, nirvana, yada, yada, yada. But then everything's a conceptual abstraction including body, mind, consciousness, etc.

"3. You're falling into typical trap a lot of people who READ a lot about "nonduality" fall into: the notion that words, ideas, or conceptualization alone is the problem, and therefore a different conceptualization should be the solution."

I agree I have read various theories on the concept of non-duality, however, I have been introduced to the concept in other ways as well. Nevertheless, it’s all intellectually scrunched up together in my ego anyway. You seem to imply that my ideas are simply rote renditions of books I have read. Why couldn’t my ego simply make up its own revolutionary theories out of what has been previously read? Some refer to that as “genius” so why couldn’t I be a genius? (HA! Got an ego lurch outa that one). Why couldn't anyone, since it's all conceptual anyway?

But you’re correct in intellectual learning being a trap. I suppose we could conceptualize all spiritual seeking as a trap, because once you think you ‘know,’ you become instantly trapped in the ‘knowing.’ And who does not rely on the egoic intellect in the search?

"Whereas what may be required is not merely a change of mind but a change of action: actively countering the egoic habits of this lifetime (and possibly many before) that otherwise our binding attention and energy and obscuring realization. Maya is not just a conceptual mistake. Ego is not just an idea. It's a pattern of behaviors that keep one identified with the body and mind. No undoing of that false identification is possible through just thinking differently."

What is ‘action” if not within the flow of consciousness. I’m sure you don’t mean empirically observable behaviors? What is the concept of “behavior”? Is it outside consciousness or inside based on ego coordinates of space/time? If all behavior is IN consciousness, then we may need to redefine the concept of “action.” What are you ‘acting’ upon?

You merely reinforce as real what you counter or resist by asserting that it's not real or even simply not desired. Countering “egoic habits of this lifetime” merely creates a void immediately filled with other habits since we define our lives by habits of thought, which is empirically observed as behaviors (or so we believe). Ego will resist a vacuum (even nature “abhors” that) since nothingness would nullify its existence. I understand what “maya” is, however, I avoid Hindu-Buddhist terminology since this tends to sacralize the concepts and we have all sorts of sacred concepts being tossed around that just perpetuate suffering and sacrifice. As opposed to “illusion,” I tend to employ the term delusion, which gives it a personal flavor (and more responsibility).

However, even in the 'real world', psychology has rather accurately identified thought as the origin of behavior. I merely agree with psychology but extend that to identifying thought as origin of 'self' and ‘world’ or universe (which are just more concepts). Therefore, I would agree that ego is a pattern of habitualized thought that keeps one identified with ego. Yet, I am hesitant to indict “mind” or consciousness/awareness. We may simply disagree on the defining properties or rules applied to our concepts. I suppose that cannot be remedied.

Seeking to change extrinsic behavior merely denies origin and asserts space/time coordinates. However, you have not defined what, in your opinion, a “false identification” is, so maybe you could leave me another comment on that one. In fact, what does “false” mean? Is their a value-scale? But then that would be egoic, right?

Thanks for the comments!

(Let this be a lesson to all you hate-mailers. If your comment is free of nasty expletives and seeks to further the game, then I will happily post your comments, no matter how much I might disagree)