“…it’s very important, because that is one of the approaches that can bring about a radical appreciation of an aspect of our self that had been forgotten, had been overlooked.”
“There is a concept in top down teachings that we have to break down our identification with the body, and with the mind, and all the rest of external things in order to be able to see one aspect of ourselves that we tend do forgot and overlook – and that is consciousness/source/god aspect.
I heard that Ramesh was talking about an ego, and describing it as consciousness identified with three dimensional entity which we call a body. It is identification with name and form basically.
And there is a two types of an ego:
– one type is ego with sense of doership and attachment to outcome
– other type of ego is without sense of doership and attachment to outcome
But from Ramesh’s description of the ego it seem that acctually identification with the body and the mind reimerge again in bottom up approach, and my question is – how this sense of separation really dissolve, because ego even without sense of doership still looks to me as a some sort of separate entity.
Maybe I am mixing between identification and attachment ?”
The term “identification” has different meanings in different contexts.
In top-down teaching context is that identification means misunderstanding of our true nature – consciousness identified with something which is not. In that case we are lost in that identification.
In the context of integrated perspective and bottom up approach of the ego it means consciousnes linked to a body mind organism.
Roger uses the word “link” instead the word “identification” to prevent this misunderstanding (of course with respect to Ramesh’s version), and it is also different from attachment.
So conclusion is that in experiential level we will always feel separation, but on attitudinal level that will not be the case. This levels are different but they both create integrated perspective, which is the bigger picture of understanding.