ego

Discussion of the SES, particularly in the UK.
falstaff

ego

Postby falstaff » Sat Mar 20, 2004 2:18 pm

Wondering if any ex-member of ses or affiliated programs could also tell me if the focus on the watching and limiting of the ego formed one of the crucial tenets of the philosophy program. All my family is in the ses and this seems to be a major part. Obviously limiting the ego can be good if done for the correct reasons, but it is also a well known technique of brainwashing which subjugates the individuals will to that institution. This program of deperonalising can also cause major pyschoological problems...

Alban
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:23 am
Location: London

Postby Alban » Fri Mar 26, 2004 12:55 am

From what I remember (20 years ago) it was one of the first things that was put on the agenda.

Don't know if it's still there now (it must be), but you are quite right to point out the link between dampening down of the ego and "brainwashing".

grobchok
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 3:06 pm

the ego

Postby grobchok » Wed Jun 30, 2004 8:32 am

Falstaff

Dampening down the ego is part of every major philosophy or religion, with a few notable exceptions - for example Nietzsche, who positively encourages us to magnify it.

Having said this, there are undoubtedly dangers to this process. I can give you my experience over many years in the SES, summed up as follows:

1. Realise that ego is dangerous and inadequate as a pilot for life
2. Accept that "the teaching" is better
3. Jettison former in favour of latter
4. Period of intense, bright-eyed exhilaration
5. Hangover: this hasn't solved anything
6. Anger: I thought you told me my problems would go with my ego
7. Realisation: ego still fully in control though with philosophical clothing, my problems are my own
8. Let's have another look at this philosophy stuff.

So I disagree with Nietzsche ... the ego is destructive when it's given free rein. The problem with attempts to dampen or suppress it is that it's such a slippery customer. In other words, it takes on the role of the ego-suppressor. So you can't wish it away. Personally, I think it's best to keep the little bugger in view. The SES is gradually learning this.

mei_ei@yahoo.ca

Postby mei_ei@yahoo.ca » Thu Jul 01, 2004 6:00 am

oo good old 'ahankara' as they call it.. i'll post on this later

Abel Holzing
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2004 9:51 pm

Re: ego

Postby Abel Holzing » Fri Jul 02, 2004 10:33 am

falstaff wrote:Obviously limiting the ego can be good if done for the correct reasons, but it is also a well known technique of brainwashing which subjugates the individuals will to that institution. This program of deperonalising can also cause major pyschological problems...


I am a member of the SES, and I can confirm that "watching the ego" is very much one of the recommended disciplines. As you say, there are "correct reasons" (here "watching" simply means being 'fully aware' of the ego and its motives, or 'bearing witness' - this helps you to discover what motivates you deep down, warts and all, triggering a self-purifying process), and an approach that can perhaps be described as "brainwashing" (here you are not only "watching", but at the same time replacing the old with a new, externally provided and seemingly superior set of beliefs / motives etc, perhaps motivated by a genuine desire to speed up the purification process). The former means being (or becoming) yourself, the latter means turning yourself into someone that conforms to a picture you have come to accept of yourself.

Stick to the former.

Christoph

Ego

Postby Christoph » Sat Oct 09, 2004 1:00 pm

Yes, as an SES member, I can endorse most of the points raised here (apart from the sinister brainwashing-to-manipulate guff - no way!). But there is a major problem: trying to "do" something about the ego (or ahankara to give its Vedic term) means confronting an interesting question - who, or what, is "doing" the ego-bashing? Yes, you guessed it - the ego itself. Which only goes to prove that the ego is such a subtle thing that it can take on the guise of its own apparent destroyer. Can't be done!

Ultimately, all one can really do is to practice the meditation, and discover gradually that the ego is changing into a quieter, calmer, more measured thing. The real test is when you hit the bad times - does the 'new ego' help you through, or does the old ego rear its ugly head again? In the end, it's all consciousness, it's just that we can't distinguish pure consciousness from the ego that's latched on to it from an age earlier than we can even remember.

I did hear a lovely story recently to illustrate this - parents of a four-year-old girl overheard her going up to her baby brother and whispering to him "Baby, please tell me about God - I'm beginning to forget".

dan
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:39 pm

old guff

Postby dan » Sun Oct 10, 2004 10:26 am

I did hear a lovely story recently to illustrate this - parents of a four-year-old girl overheard her going up to her baby brother and whispering to him "Baby, please tell me about God - I'm beginning to forget".


Christoph, you really do write a lot of old guff. You are regurgitating the SES idiocy of latching onto terms like ego in an unscientific way. Can't you come up with your own theories of self help, can't you think originally and come up with your own words to explain your personality/situation. You use this ridiculous SES terminology as if it's perfectly acceptable e.g 'throw away the old ego'.

Because you use these terms and throw in the odd indian word, you think you are writing wisely I assume. In fact you don't make any sense because you have not learned to think for yourself and use your own language to describe what you feel.

I expect you enjoy the madness of SES 'speak' and membership because it makes you feel 'special' and slightly superior to others, it is worrying to me that a four old asks a baby such questions. What idiocy has this child been told to make her think she is forgetting. It is worrying that such young children are still being indoctrinated with SES nonsense. Cant SES cult members just keep their innocent children away from the madness of SES teaching. This stupid organisation (SES) has messed up many people's heads by involving children in McClaren/ Ouspensky's crazy derivative theories.

Nothing I have read about the SES or personally experienced indicates to me that this organisation does anything but seek to flatter its leaders by recruiting unquestioning needy followers.

Go and get some therapy before you explode with too many new 'egos'.

Dan
Dan

Christoph

Re: old guff

Postby Christoph » Mon Oct 11, 2004 9:54 pm

Dan[/quote]Christoph, you really do write a lot of old guff.

Thank you for your mildly insulting language. Actually the baby story comes from Dan Millman and has nothing to do with the SES. I threw it in because it inspired me as a story and I wanted to share it. I don't expect everyone else to be moved by the same things I am, and I hope I don't express my intolerance in quite the over-assertive way you do.

Nothing I have read about the SES or personally experienced

I would be interested in what your experience actually is. If it was limited (a term or two) and was a bad experience, then of course I understand your having a negative view about it - this is the inevitable response of human beings to bad things that happen. If my experience of the SES had been poor, I too would now be making loud noises about it. But it wasn't. So I have the right to say that my own experience was positive. I don't have the right to tell someone else that theirs was or should have been.

Can't you come up with your own theories of self help, can't you think originally and come up with your own words to explain your personality/situation. You use this ridiculous SES terminology as if it's perfectly acceptable e.g 'throw away the old ego'.

I practice the Advaita philosophy because it works for me, and therefore why should I not use its terms? If I was a geneticist, then would you criticise me for using the language of genetics rather than my own theories of evolution and science? Of course not. But I don't limit myself to the SES - I also am a Quaker, I am very interested in shamanism (Carlos Castaneda / Dan Millman etc), yoga, T'ai Chi, Buddhism, and anything that gives me inspiration, broadens my mind and my horizons, and makes me think.

Christoph

Quotes

Postby Christoph » Mon Oct 11, 2004 9:56 pm

Oh dear! I haven't got the hang of these quotes, have I?

Anyone with a bit of patience willing to explain to me how it works?

User avatar
a different guest
Posts: 620
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 12:13 am
Location: Australia

Re: Quotes

Postby a different guest » Wed Oct 13, 2004 11:42 am

Christoph wrote:Oh dear! I haven't got the hang of these quotes, have I?

Anyone with a bit of patience willing to explain to me how it works?

you work it out Einstein! :P

User avatar
adrasteia
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 9:55 am

Re: Quotes

Postby adrasteia » Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:41 pm

Quotes:

When you're typing a message highlight what you want to be a quote and click 'quote'!
Code will appear at the begining and the end of your selection, and when you submit it it should appear as a quote.

If you want to name the source add:

="adrasteia"

to the first piece of code. Add it after the word 'quote' but inside the square brackets. Change the name as apropriate.

Hope this helps!

Christoph

Re: Quotes

Postby Christoph » Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:11 pm

adrasteia wrote:Quotes:

When you're typing a message highlight what you want to be a quote and click 'quote'!
Code will appear at the begining and the end of your selection, and when you submit it it should appear as a quote.


Thank you adrasteia - you've been most patient. I hope this demonstrates that your teaching was effective!

Christoph

Nanpanton, Waterperry etc

Postby Christoph » Thu Oct 14, 2004 9:41 pm

By the way, adrasteia, I notice in an earlier thread that you raised a point about the SES property. I know a bit about this...

I was in the Birmingham School when Nanpanton Hall was offered to the School free of charge by the person who had just inherited it from her aunt who left it to her in her Will. School got the house and gardens, but the inheritee got three or four working farms which were all she needed! She gave it to the School because she had done some of the philosophy in the past and liked it.

I seem to remember the building needed a lot of work (a lot of it done free by SES students of course) and it was too much for Birmingham on its own so they offered it to the London School who have maintained and administered it ever since.

I've no idea how Waterperry House was acquired but I wouldn't be surprised to find it was a similar story.

Stanhill Court was never owned by School and is now a hotel I believe.

Mandeville Place was bought from the sale of the previous London premises, itself presumably a very good return on the original 1950s purchase price.

Sarum Chase? No idea where that came from.

I hope this helps.

User avatar
adrasteia
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 9:55 am

Re: Quotes

Postby adrasteia » Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:36 am

Christoph wrote:
adrasteia wrote:Quotes:

When you're typing a message highlight what you want to be a quote and click 'quote'!
Code will appear at the begining and the end of your selection, and when you submit it it should appear as a quote.


Thank you adrasteia - you've been most patient. I hope this demonstrates that your teaching was effective!


Very Good! ;)

Don't worry, it wasn't a problem, anytime!

User avatar
adrasteia
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 9:55 am

Re: Nanpanton, Waterperry etc

Postby adrasteia » Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:39 am

Christoph wrote:
Sarum Chase? No idea where that came from.


Actually I've heard through the grapevine that Sarum Chase is being sold soon, though I'm not sure when. (I'm pretty sure I've got the right property, but I always get them muddled up!)


Return to “General discussion of SES”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests