Excerpt - Quote from the book 'Advanced Teachings' by Mrs. Endall Beall

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by EmEx (here)

Sickness is a Defense against the truth, according to ACIM.

Well, ACIM (A Course In Miracles) is 100% flat wrong about that.

Of course, that might be true in some cases. But to lay that on everyone is a cheap, thoughtless, insensitive insult.

Think about it: actually, no-one would be exempt. Unless we're a victim of an accident (or is that a 'defense against the truth', also?), we're all going to die... of something, sometime.

Life is full of unknowns, and that's part of the Great Game we all play. We come here, and we take risks. It's all part of the package. There's no other deal.

Sometimes, we take a stray bullet. And sometimes, it's the more courageous among us -- not those in some kind of denial -- who receive those impacts and wounds.

[AutumnW]

Posted by DNA (here)

Posted by greybeard (here)
The late Dr David Hawkins promoted A.C.I.M.
He made several comments.
One was that the first part was possibly channeled from a different entity and best to concentrate on the work book,.

I'm okay with channeled material, as long as one has developed the ability to discern the wheat from the chaff.

Secondly that the course demonised the ego, which was in his eyes not helpful--best to transcend it.

Rather than fight with my ego, I've learned to recognize it, embrace it, know the nuances of it.
If you truly know your ego, if you really get to know it, you will find that you can bust your mother efn ass doing whatever you want to transcend, battle, escape from it, in the end you realize you will never be rid of it. Best to make good with your ego and in all honesty live as peaceful as you can with it.
The ego does not follow you to the other side.
Not only does the ego not follow you, but you are suddenly aligned with the greater part of yourself that you separated from in order to incarnate here.
We incarnated here to understand life while connected to ego. We did not incarnate here to experience life in a blissful state of meditative transcendence. The ego is not a lesson taught in terms of a prison guard one needs to escape from, but rather a life long room mate one has to learn to endure and proceed in spite of, it is as if we are Felix from the Odd Couple and our ego is Oscar. Apparently reincarnationally speaking there are not too many lessons to be learned with legs in a lotus position while sitting in contemplative bliss next to a willow reed punctuated pond.

DNA,

I think that the ego persists in such a resistant crazy way because life, in the not so distant past was nasty brutish and short. The only thing that stood between the individual and social ostracism (certain death for a social species) was bluff, bluster.

Resignation to a more inward, reflective self, could very well have been perceived as a weakness. Societies self cull. It's tragic. So, we are truly and remarkably sensitive to any slight, perceived or otherwise that would place us more on the social periphery.

For example -- and this goes for women as much as men. If you insult someone along the lines that doesn't diminish their power, for example, imply they are mean spirited, they will merely react, but retain composure.

Imply though, that somebody is a goof, a nitwit, a laughing stock, in other words someone who can't be taken seriously -- and watch their ego go completely berserko. Those kinds of suggestions, REALLY weaken the individual socially. They hurt badly and seemingly out of proportion, because they represent an existential threat, rooted in historical precedent. The ego defends against humiliation, more than anything else.

[RunningDeer]

Doug Michael and Mr. & Mrs. BE quotes:

The spirit path is about your spirit. Your spirit path is about you recognizing and owning your spirit and revering it above everything else but knowing it is above nothing else.

Mrs. Endall Beall - “The Energy Experience: Energy Work for the Second Cognition, Chapter 20: The Human Myth”

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

The ego is like a mind virus. It could be compared to a parasite on our original consciousness. In order for us to find and re-attach to our originating consciousness, to our inner spirit, we have to remove the control of the ego parasite as the governing element over our consciousness.


This ego parasite is like a computer virus, a piece of malware on our psyches that controls us and limits our perceptions and prevents our advancement into a more consciously aware species.

Endall Beall & Doug Michael - “The New Paradigm Transcripts: Teachings for a New Tomorrow: Chapter 3 - Practical Spirituality”

[DNA]

Posted by AutumnW (here)

DNA,

I think that the ego persists in such a resistant crazy way because life, in the not so distant past was nasty brutish and short. The only thing that stood between the individual and social ostracism (certain death for a social species) was bluff, bluster.

I think you are on to something here. I see it a tad different though.
I see things through a Gnostic lens of sorts, and this view is repeated by Ayahausca imbibing Shamans from South America.
I think there are two distinct battles to engage when looking to free one self and seek autonomy.
Extracting oneself from the clutches of sociological indoctrination is first and foremost.
To examine who you really are and distill that from your socially implanted reactions takes a bit.
In truth, without taking the time to weed the garden and remove the views of society we absolutely can not call our selves autonomous.
When folks are in the midst of this process I often refer to it as the elongated introspection. It is a time when one questions "everything" and it can be quite draining to be around such folks while they are engaged such. If folks hop on and truly immerse themselves in this process it can be accomoplisehd to a large degree in as little as just a few years.
But separating one's self from ego and separating one's self from society are two distinctly different undertakings in my opinion.

Resignation to a more inward, reflective self, could very well have been perceived as a weakness. Societies self cull. It's tragic. So, we are truly and remarkably sensitive to any slight, perceived or otherwise that would place us more on the social periphery.

I believe you are correct here.
I believe this fact that we are so sensitive to any slight as you say is absolutely true, and one of the most used and successful devices of the demiurge when milking mankind of it's god given essence. Every time we experience being offended by our fellow man we are bleeding energy, and this energy is lapped up by the forces that keep us in a constant state of spiritual sleep.

For example -- and this goes for women as much as men. If you insult someone along the lines that doesn't diminish their power, for example, imply they are mean spirited, they will merely react, but retain composure.

Imply though, that somebody is a goof, a nitwit, a laughing stock, in other words someone who can't be taken seriously -- and watch their ego go completely berserko. Those kinds of suggestions, REALLY weaken the individual socially. They hurt badly and seemingly out of proportion, because they represent an existential threat, rooted in historical precedent. The ego defends against humiliation, more than anything else.

I believe there are two main connections used by the demiurge to bleed mankind of it's vital essence.
I believe the connection to society is one.
And I believe the connection to ego is the other.
Ego being different from society, in that it contains inherent flaws, flaws we soon realize after disconnecting from society that are inherent to our person and almost impossible to free ourselves from.
These flaws are different for every person.
But if you take the time to get to really know yourself, you should be capable of becoming aware of them.

[Rich]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by EmEx (here)

Sickness is a Defense against the truth, according to ACIM.

Well, ACIM (A Course In Miracles) is 100% flat wrong about that.

Of course, that might be true in some cases. But to lay that on everyone is a cheap, thoughtless, insensitive insult.

Bill, it's not meant as an insult, ACIM teaches that we are all powerful but we cannot see this if we deny responsibility. Our ego interprets taking responsibility for what happens as taking the blame, but it is actually only about admitting our power. Which then gives us the possibility of changing our situation.

Defenses are not unintentional, nor are they made without awareness. They are secret, magic wands you wave when truth appears to threaten what you would believe. They seem to be unconscious but because of the rapidity with which you choose to use them. In that second, even less, in which the choice is made, you recognize exactly what you would attempt to do, and then proceed to think that it is done. Who but yourself evaluates a threat, decides escape is necessary, and sets up a series of defenses to reduce the threat that has been judged as real? All this cannot be done unconsciously. But afterwards, your plan requires that you must forget you made it, so it seems to be external to your own intent; a happening beyond your state of mind, an outcome with a real effect on you, instead of one effected by yourself.

This is from Lesson 136 if someone wants to read it, the book pdf can be downloaded for free.

[AutumnW]

DNA,

I don't disagree that there is a Demi-urge and appreciate the Ayhuasca shamans who describe it and your thoughts about it. We could very well be a species, interfered with, on an emotional, ideological level, that flies under the radar of self observation.

My perception of 'ego' is that it is the self projecting itself into the social sphere. That projection can be mostly authentic or all the way to utterly false. We all fit somewhere on that continuum. If we were born on a desert island and lived out our lives alone, ego wouldn't be an issue. Would it? The demiurge could work on us in a different way, I guess, but not on our ego. It would work on anger, fear, etc... but not on public embarrassment.

For me, the best way to look at solving the problem of demiurge and ego, is to follow the golden rule and try to limit undercutting others -- though I really find it tempting when I feel I am being undermined, myself. And sometimes it's necessary to just disengage, move away from, distance self. But, other than those instances, I think the best way to defeat the demiurge is to love and engage fully. T give others the sense, "I BEHOLD thee."

Too much distance placed between self and those perceived to be in the grip of the demiurge, can feed post human impulses in an atomized society. This might be one of the ultimate meta-jokes being played out by any interfering entity.

They may nurture within us a desire for "safe space," for those trying to escape their influence. Can you imagine the cool clinical detachment and lack of nurturance that could cause and how like the machine we could become.

Corny as it sounds, real and deep enduring love for our fellow man is the only way out of Hell.

[greybeard]

Posted by EmEx (here)

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by EmEx (here)

Sickness is a Defense against the truth, according to ACIM.

Well, ACIM (A Course In Miracles) is 100% flat wrong about that.

Of course, that might be true in some cases. But to lay that on everyone is a cheap, thoughtless, insensitive insult.

Bill, it's not meant as an insult, ACIM teaches that we are all powerful but we cannot see this if we deny responsibility. Our ego interprets taking responsibility for what happens as taking the blame, but it is actually only about admitting our power. Which then gives us the possibility of changing our situation.

Defenses are not unintentional, nor are they made without awareness. They are secret, magic wands you wave when truth appears to threaten what you would believe. They seem to be unconscious but because of the rapidity with which you choose to use them. In that second, even less, in which the choice is made, you recognize exactly what you would attempt to do, and then proceed to think that it is done. Who but yourself evaluates a threat, decides escape is necessary, and sets up a series of defenses to reduce the threat that has been judged as real? All this cannot be done unconsciously. But afterwards, your plan requires that you must forget you made it, so it seems to be external to your own intent; a happening beyond your state of mind, an outcome with a real effect on you, instead of one effected by yourself.

This is from Lesson 136 if someone wants to read it, the book pdf can be downloaded for free.

The difficulty is context.
If the course in its entirety is studied then it is seen in a different light.
The language used I find a bit difficult to get my head round at times.

Chris

[greybeard]

The ego--don't feed the beast--don't fight it don't give it energy--don't own it--just let it be.
Thats all I need to know.--now!!!
Ch

[AutumnW]

Emex, tcim, in my experience is teaching something that is wrong. It is a grosse over-simplification to declare that anybody is all powerful. In what way? What does it even mean? In it's own way, this kind of thing is as detrimental to the human spirit as the Christian nonsense that we are a bunch of powerless sinners.

[Rich]

Yes Chris, it took me a while to get used to its writing style, and actually understand what it is trying to say.

Autumn we can't believe that we are all powerful and completely loved if we see ourselves as separate from God. I'm not saying I accept complete responsibility but I think it's a helpful thought to keep in mind that God created us perfect, which is what ACIM teaches.

[Flash]

thank you Chris, you are making my job easy. Because I had the exact same feeling as you had with the opening post. Right or wrong does not matter, it is just the feeling I had. This is why I wrote that a mountain is a mountain. And that I did not see the "advanced" in it.

Bill, this is what I meant. I know very well that climbers can and often do have epiphanies after a difficult climb or when they are saving the life of a partner. I know very well too that many highly demanding physical activities (the gold medals of this world) will encounter some real "dépassement" of themselves, leading sometimes to spiritual awakenings.

I also know that for others, the mountain is not physical, but psychological, mystical, in fact, different in appearance. Yet, they will reach the same spiritual awakenings with a different kind of mountain (difficulty). We all have tremendous montains to climb, this is why we are here, to learn on climbing. Some have it soft, and we cannot judge on why: maybe it is karma and they need rest this life around, maybe they are just younger souls in the 3rd dimension learning path and need to go slow, who knows, certainly not me. All I know is that I had my own mountains to climb and they were (are) truthfully very difficult at times.

And surprisingly, the positive and delighful times in life are sometimes as difficult to cross as the hard ones, because they too demand a revision of false beliefs systems (I am going through this at the present time, I am so use to fight for survival that letting go to live a smooth and enjoyable life is a major challenge). A delightful mountain, but nevertheless a mountain.

So, to me, the mountain allegory was somewhat poor in regards of what we go through in life. And not advanced, no more than an illness which is often a mountain as well, no more than scary negative egregores to confront, no more than ETs close encounters for example. Pretty much the same intensity, depending on what one has to learn in order to go forward in its development.

Also, I think we do not use this allegory as much in French as it is used in English, except for the New Testament maybe were you have the calvary (a mountain) and "le mont des Oliviers". So this allegory probably does not have the same cultural weight for me as it has in the English speaking world. Therefore, not that "advanced". In French we will use "displace a mountain - déplacer une montagne" which means a real ardeous enormous task and "to climb a mountain - gravir une montagne" which simply means again something difficult to do (but not with the end being an inner change, a psychological transformation, or a different view on life, we do not use it that way usually, although we are being inundated with English meanings and allegories nowaday).

Talking about climbing mountians: death of Junko Tabei, the first woman to have climb the Everest, today October 23.
Décès de Junko Tabei, la première femme à avoir gravit l’Everest

http://www.kairn.com/deces-de-junko-...avit-leverest/

Posted by greybeard (here)

Posted by happyuk (here)

Posted by greybeard (here)
MrsEndallBeall

Teaching on what?
Enlightenment---Self Realization--Non-duality.
There are no advance teaching on these that Im aware of.
For me spirituality is finding the answer to the question "Who am I"
It may well be different for you.
Looking forward to your response Mrs
Ch

Hi Greybeard I think this deceptively simple teaching penetrates some pretty subtle levels and is worthy of an advanced teaching.

Replace the word mountain with any difficult predicament you or I commonly face.

For many the word 'mountain' can be analogous to overcoming any problem that serves to prolong human misery, and to attempt to overcome it and fail in the attempt is infinitely preferable to having never tried in the first place. It may well be too high to complete in the first few inexperienced attempts, and this symbolizes a predicament common to every person with high aspirations. Man longs instinctively for a life freed from competition and worry (a definition of happiness?) ; freed from hatred and violence; freed from the need for constant care.

Alas few people even suspect that such a state can exist or can be found. Of those who do entertain such hopes, most will turn away discouraged by saying, “But it’s much too difficult for me!" "Out of a thousand,” Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita, "one seeks Me." Those who take up the spiritual path for commonly expecting only blissful visions and a comfortable, trouble-free life, become discouraged when they find how often God neglects the roses in favour of thorns.

I was not questioning the mountain story as it is well known and used by quite a few--I think I said I found it useful.
However it was the way that the opening post was presented that led me to query
It was an honest question as to the variety of teaching being offered.
It was as if a superiority was there---as in, I know something that you dont, ive come to share an advanced teaching--thats an assumption.
Advanced suggests superior levels superior knowledge.

There are different levels but they are all equal.
A univerrsity stutent is equal to a primary school pupil learning ABC
The teacher has to know the class he is supposed to be teaching.
Now that was my initial feeling--Im not saying I was right.

If you read the rest of my posts you will see that encouraged Mrs to continue.

Chris

[Flash]

For the ego now,

working with the ego is like "déplacer une montagne - displace a mountain" a very difficult and enormous task at times.

Why working with? Because it means the ego is not having the conducting role, it has a supporting role. Getting rid of the ego as some eastern monks say, is, in my view, ridiculous. The ego exist because we need it in this third dimension world. We need an ego to push us to build a roof over our heads, to find strategies to protect us agains predators, to build a social network where the ego is recognised, in order to motivate us to built a society and to live in it. The ego is necessary, as much as the body is, to live the dream of the 3rd dimension.

A very strong ego is I think always the hall mark of someone on the evolutionary path, as long as the link with the higher self is not cuf off. It is important to deal with this strong ego, and get the higher self into the driver seat, because that very strong ego will first help sharpen our spiritual tools, being a force in itself to tame, and second it will ensure a true and strong incarnation with strong 3D abilities to serve the higher self. In other words, a mushy ego (mushy being in 3D, kind of unable to create life in 3D) with high level spiritual abilities won't help much on this planet.

But, I, the big I, the eternal I, the higher self, the soul or spirit, is/has to be the driver, at all times (which the ego won't let because it perceives the big I as not from this world, which rightfully it is not, and not worthy of ensuring the continuation of its ego/body life. The ego is right, it has been put in place to allow for life continuation in 3D simply because it is an easy way to build the experience. I allows for automatic responses to life situations or life dangers when there is.

The problem arise when the ego is the driver, because it does not know where the next destination is, so it drives us as it can, without a global map. Being afraid for itself, it does not let the higher self in the driver seat and try to fight it. Often, as in the case of the Ellite/cabal, the ego will even cut all links to the higher self without realising that this cut off stems from its first primordial incredible fear.

Therefore, we are caught with ego without higher self who have taken the driving seat of our societies, thinking that their brain understand where they are heading, when in fact they do not.

It is up to us to let our higher selves in our own driver seat so that as a society, we can finally do the same.

_____________

A note: I have not read that anywhere, I came, through much ego stance, fights and work, and through observation of nature and other humans, exchange with developed people, I therefore came to that conclusion. It may change at any time as I get more information, inspiration, creative work, etc.

So I have no references to give of books etc.

-------------------

Oh yes, and I know that the higher self is translating its energies into love very often and
that one path to bypass the ego is the heart path, otherwise it may take 1000s of years to tame that much too use and probably genetically tweaked ego.

[greybeard]

Thanks for your posts Flash which make sense to me.
The best definition I ever read of ego is "Identification with the story of me"

Ramesh Balsekar said "God gave you and ego, let him take it away" I think the operative bit is "let him"

The ego is only a thought which we give great power to by personalizing it as in ownership--my thought

The my extends to everything--My car My house My partner My profession.
When the my is removed so is the power of the ego.

I dont mind so much if a neighbors car is damaged--if its mine a different story.
We live in a materialistic world and it seems our personal worth is noted by the house we live in the car we drive and so on.

There is a saying "That which brings you pleasure, brings you pain"
That new relationship that is the one then turns sour--what then ?
The new car scratched.
All ego.---My story.
Things happen, they dont have to be taken so personally.
The so called ego takes everything personally---It rained on my parade--that was not supposed to happen..
First step I suppose, is realizing that its an egoic, thought then, distancing yourself from it.
Not my thought

"To whom did that thought arise?
It arose to me,
Who is this I ?"

That is a technique taught by Ramana Maharshi.

The enlightened do not see anything as separate--different but not separate as we see it.
The finger is part of the hand but not the hand,
The wave is part of the ocean but not the ocean.

The enlightened do not have an ego--there is not an individual separate person there to have an ego.
The ego is a separation device.
It makes you think you are separate from creation.
Wayne Dyer said it stands for Edge God Out.

Ch

[Chester]

Posted by MrsEndallBeall (here)
To use an analogy, if you are hiking up a
mountain, the person at the top of the mountain has a
better understanding of the mountain and a better view
and can see more than the person still at the base of
the mountain. Just because you think you know the
entire mountain from standing at the bottom and
looking up doesn’t mean that you know the mountain.
The person standing at the top of the mountain will
know more about the mountain because they have the
experience of climbing it and being at the top of it. It
doesn’t mean they are better, smarter, more intelligent,
or more spiritual because they are at the top of the
mountain, it means they have a different and greater
perspective than they had before they climbed the
mountain. It also means they have a greater
understanding of the mountain and a better view than
the person still standing in the foothills that has never
climbed the mountain.

I agree with this quote based on my own experience.

I recall in my younger days that all too often I believed I had a combination of 1.) basic knowledge and 2.) my own personal ability to "get stuff" that I could understand what I needed regarding just about anything including deeply profound spiritual concepts.

Fortunately I have continued to be open minded about most everything, including the possibility I may have a better (greater) perspective when I reach milestones such as climbing to the top of a mountain. Another thing I have learned is... there are always taller mountains.

When I consider the possibility of an eternal journey, I hope there is always taller mountains.

[Chester]

I want to add this -

I went through a stage of life where I thought I had something to teach to others. That was a very long stage of my life. Fortunately (with perhaps the exception of a rare post of this nature now and then), I have mostly 'grown' out of this stage. Perhaps that I rarely post is a reflection of that. Part of why I am no longer much able to offer anything that appears to be 'teaching' is because I have discovered so much depends on perspective. For some folks this is easily resolved by adopting the perspective of what words can only point to - non-duality as one word.

Yet still, is that not a perspective? I rest in the comfort that I am "the timeless, formless eternal one life" (Eckhart Tolle) yet when I accidentally drop that heavy brick on my toe and find myself hopping up and down screaming in pain, I accept that at that very moment, my perspective is reduced to the self reflective and physically incarnate being known as Sam Hunter, a completely different perspective. In addition, I hold hope that there be an individuation of what is, at least, the essence of "me" which survives the death of the physical container. I call this hope, "me, the spirit."

There's three perspectives alone. And when I consider the possibility of the lovely Gnostic myths being more than just myths, perhaps that explains this thing called "the soul" considering "the soul" just might be the very "container" within which "me, the spirit" is held. And for this I find that I am constantly recycled into a matrix produced by some third party (the demiurge?) and perceived by my lower aspects of being as "against my will."

Ooooops, I think I slipped into some bad habits - is "suggesting possibility" close enough to "teaching?"

[AutumnW]

Posted by AutumnW (here)
Emex, tcim, in my experience is teaching something that is wrong. It is a grosse over-simplification to declare that anybody is all powerful. In what way? What does it even mean? In it's own way, this kind of thing is as detrimental to the human spirit as the Christian nonsense that we are a bunch of powerless sinners.

Emex,

This came off as pretty aggressive. I have to remember that the written word, weirdly enough, rather than softening our responses can harden them. Let me expand just a bit here. When somebody uses the term 'all powerful,' it can mean such different things to different people. I think this is the original point you made and I should have heeded it. In it's purest form power is just energy, like electricity and can be applied to anything. Power in conjunction with love, care and concern can make us all powerful, in a sense.

I took the 'all powerful,' too literally after you attempted to provide context. I'm sorry.

[Ewan]

The guy who introduced me to an awakening said at one point to me.. "..you can't function in this dimension without an ego, but let it be the passenger and not the driver."

He also used to tell a tale where there was a coach and horses, a coach driver and a passenger. He said the average human sits in the carriage unaware where he is going, the ego holds the reins and the emotions (horses) are much too free to do as they please.
The awakening human would climb up onto the seat next to the driver and tell it where to go, further along the path they would let the ego take the back seat. With the horses under full control and the voice of the ego now back in the carriage there was no reason the driver could not reach whatever destiantion he set his mind to.

[earthadvocate]

Replying to your long post Mrs EndallBeall, and I think only you can answer this:
I was reading the part 1 of the "we are not alone " series on page 254 when you mention about "the appearance of certain Gnostic traditions that reared their ugly head in the Cathar religion" you mentioned about them been an outcome of the Isis cult?
I happen to do a personal study on the Cathar from France, I actually was there in the Cathar region of France just over a month ago visiting my brother who lives near Toulouse (I was born in France) every time I go there to visit I study a little more about the Cathar.
It was a very intriguing movement who came out of no were around the year 1000, there was other countries in Europe were they appeared as well, but the difference with what the Isis cult were practicing is they did not believe in baptism with water, it was done with the laying of hands, and only willing adult were baptized which they called "consolation", also they did not believe in the trinity and took no interest in the cross because in their eyes Jesus died in the cross and that was nothing to be celebrated upon .
Also they treated woman as equal to men (not superior) , I needed to let you know because you mention about how baptism with water started before Christ in the cult of Isis, and that you were putting the Cathar in that category as in the Isis tradition.