Ego versus God


Keep bodies to a minimum. 

That is use them to the hilt with discipline and a certain spartan attitude which must be reversed from time to time with the pursuit of pleasure. The simple aim is not be encumbered, but as when you shrink from responsibility for the whole situation rules can end up with opposite effects.  One can't have completely fixed rules, we need to be able to view life from different perspectives, every once in a while you have to change tack.  Religious leaders of the past if they could be here now, might find that what they created has become its opposite. (Reflections on Religion)


Dietary rules divide people into groups, in and out. Thus it is popular in religion as it seems, just follow the rules and you are in.  Religion is a much harder road than that. Religion is a struggle of morals, between the innate selfishness of people and goodness.

Religions can also divide in general, saved / unsaved, faithful / infidels, jews / gentiles, enlightened / unenlightened. Surely the aim of religion is God, the route to God in religions is most commonly through selfless behaviour. And a measure of how people apply religion is their attitude toward the outsider, which is the meaning of the parable about the "Good Samaritan", commonly misunderstood today, a Samaritan is not just a passerby,  but an outsider, there was apparently a bit of hatred between them and Jews of the time.

Although the Old Testament is full of rules, it seems to be a general body of law as well as religion, so perhaps some differentiation between custom and religion can be made. The same can probably be said about Islam.

One of the most powerful statements in the old Testament is a cornerstone of Christianity. Leviticus 19:18: Love your neighbour as yourself. Also described as the "Great Commandment of Christianity":

"And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these." Mark 12:28-31

If one were to travel to Turkey now on the way to becoming a fascist Islamic State, one could stop over in Dubai where if a woman reports rape she faces punishment. Or many other examples of problems with Islam as social ideology.  The common thread being following the rules rather than the heart of the religion. But on the way one would have met wonderful generous people in all countries.

My opinion is that food should be hygenic and there should be no stress and minimum cruelty in slaughter. This is hard in industrial production so we should also look to ourselves.

One of the ways in which people show generosity and welcome is to share food. Its also a route for cultures to find acceptance in multicultural societies, we all take on a little of the other.  This is a little harder when special rules exist.  And also the body is not that important beyond having adequate nutrition.

Religious rules divide people, the essence of every great religion is love. That is the hard path to salvation. Duality is a way station to ultimate truth.


Ego versus God

 There is a contradiction between the West, with its individualism, and Islam (using Islam as an example of Theistic culture) which is really between the 20th Century culture of materialism underpinned by Freudian theory.  Simply put the purpose of life is pleasure, but pleasure has true and false aspects.  If creation (as described previously) draws from a wider well than oneself in the isolated sense, then one can be more than oneself, but this is a different mode of being.  But should we go too far in this direction, selflessness, it would represent invalidation of ourselves, which would just mean putting others above us.  Why so?  Are we not equally of merit? 

It could be said that Freud promotes the doctrine of the self.  We have many movies that tell us the loner wins.  This is a dead end and bad advice for life.  When one focuses on the self there is power, but many wrong directions which will stop that power.  When one is God only there is the problem of invalidating that which is part of God essence itself. If Man is created in the image of God, then self abnegation is invalidation of God.  But foolish pride is also error as it denies God.

There are others who fall by the wayside in the spiritual quest, they were asked much of and could not measure up.  They fill themselves with justifications and resentments.  All this is irrelevant, that is just a case of beingness falling short.  They become very individualistic.

Individualism is the error of the age.  It is a state of being shut off from the wider self.  Worse, the individual doesn't even know their own self, they search for meaning.  People who operate socially and spiritually do not need to search for meaning or identity, it falls naturally.  The relationship between a man and a woman is analogous to ego and God.  In a relationship there is a certain element of surrender of self, of course this is fluid and not a fixed state.  Controlling only or submissive only is robotic.  The two find a wholeness.  What we mean by God is a totality of viewpoints or the motivating essence. 

Freud can possibly be regarded as a turning point in western society from the infinite, to the self.  The West was probably individualistic but Freud made it worse.  While religion had regarded the self as something to be overcome it now became the central goal. The effect on society has been profound, from a diverse range of thought leaders from Freudo-Marxism to advertising via his disciple Ernest Dichter and a change of perspective via the Sexual revolution toward sex as "self gratification", rather than an institution of marriage ordained by God. Almost universally these changes are seen as liberation but they could also be characterised as a breakdown in social responsibility. Ego (spirituality) was not a new concept, Freud made ego both a science and a cult.

In fact Freudianism was criticised as a form of pagan religion, a "Dionysian sex-idolization" by a contemporary Viennese intellectual Egon Friedell (Cultural History of the Modern Age).   And for that, the role of celibacy in the Christian Church was not in the Bible but became an obsession afterward, and also goes back to Pagan religion and Greek philosophers including Pythagoras.

Things were quite different before Freud, people had faith in their spiritual supports.  People in Iran for instance, are much like this and see the West with horror and askance.  The ego driven society is based on cravings, it is run through advertising which exploits these urges based on psychiatric and psychological theory and is about manipulation and control.  It can be quite seductive and hence has been rejected by conservative Moslems.

But a spiritual life without individual life is also error.

Dianetics spritual healing technology, developed by L. Ron Hubbard, frees the self and then opens one to God (or Gods), through Scientology applied philosophy.  This transition through progressive realms of activity is known as the eight dynamics.  

But no matter your belief, in broad terms, there needs to be a balance, neither all self or all God.  And in between the extremes there needs to be flux, a fluid position so that one is not stuck in all "oneself" or all "others".

Note:  for people without a belief in God one could substitute the higher ethics, such as Honour.   Ego vs God can be expressed in other ways for those without spiritual reality:  life is a balance between Freedom and Responsibility.   

Ego/God duality is my original idea and represents the dual nature of the Monad, or one essence, that it is at once everything (ego) and nothing (God). 

Ego / God is also a continuum for which we could substitute  self  / selflessness.  Each side becomes contradictory in the extremes  foolish arrogance / self abnegation.  Considering we all are an aspect of God self abnegation becomes anti life.  What would happen if two saints met at a door  "you go first" says one, "no I defer, you go first" says the other.  It might go on for some time, indicating the pointless nature of it.  Watching a reality TV show about hopefull Bollywood stars being required to spend a night with a family in the slums, it was noteable how happy that family was, on the other hand life is to be enjoyed an there is nothing wrong with having well earned pleasure and its rewards, which amount to God in action like a symphony.  When we talk about possessions we talk about experience and self.   So long as one does not go into agreement with the physical universe just wanting more and more chasing perfection that is unattainable for what is impermanent and illusion. Selflessness can be too focussed on the material universe, giving it a greater importance than it warrants, and not on that which perceives and creates it, hence the Buddhist "middle way", rejection of both self-mortification and self-indulgence.  Material things really don't matter except when they become a distraction or where their lack inhibits life.

In the modern world children affected by the ego society often want to have the best brand and be the boss.  As do sometimes feminists who seem to pursue male objectives (not to say they can't) and have lost sight of the feminine.  

But where male and female find a union, we would then have male (ego) / female (selflessness - God).   In reality God is in both and the apparent duality of the Monad is only where there is belief in illusion, the material world.  While the material world is apparently concrete even physicists know it is in flux, as may be (or not be) anything below the Monad.  St Paul made some interesting comments in this direction "For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears."  But it is not possible to know the Monad "face to face".    We can go to Taoism for a higher echelon description of the Monad "The one is not confused above and not indistinct below; an unbroken continuity, it cannot be named, reverting to abstraction. This is called the formless state, the image of the abstract."(Tzu, Lao. The Original Tao Te Ching (Kindle Locations 367-369). . Kindle Edition.)


Previous page     Index      Next page

Copyright (c) David R. Griffiths 2012, 2017