Is it ego or essence?

Q:  Is it possible to determine if self is acting out of essence or out of ego? What about stepping back from a situation and counting to ten, what does that do?

A:  We see the matter as one of perception and awareness. For someone not really aware of the dichotomy of self, would they presume to always be acting through love, even when they react through fear. But for those aware of the duality, can they more easily and readily perceive the difference. When thrust into a situation it is very easy to simply react without thought or awareness. Most often that is essence responding. That it may be responding through the appropriate overleaves is true, but still would it be an essence response. If, however, thought is given and the response pondered and planned, that is ego, for ego would arrange a response that satisfies the fear(s), fears that masquerade as concern for others or self–when, in fact, it is the concern or fear that they will do something that you then must clean up, take care of, be responsible for, or will not like. It can be in the fear of greed–they might run out of these, there are not enough for you to share, you need them more than do the others. The other indication is a feeling: if of a warm, glowing unpretentious feeling of satisfaction, then it is essence responding; if the feeling is a smug, self-righteous, arrogance, then is it ego.

If your feelings are of a job well done, speech well made, actions well done, or aid well received, then you most likely responded through essence. However, if the feeling is more one of smugness, of having “won” or “beaten” the other(s), or of a need to show or explain to others what was done (whether it be for good or bad), it is most likely ego. Ego would want all to know how well it had “cheated” someone, or how well you had done in your competition, or how well you had “paid someone back”. That is egoistic and self-caring. Essence cares not if others are aware that they aided another who was in need, or could have hurt someone but did not, because essence is happy just to be, and just to experience, and so would not care if others were aware, for it is aware and that is all that matters to essence.

Essence, aware and responding through the overleaves may cause hurt–emotionally, but would not “brag” about it or even like the fact that it had done so. Essence that is aware of self, even with the overleaves in place, would NEVER directly hurt someone in a physical or spiritual way, or cause anyone permanent harm, for essence could never override its own awareness even for the “play”. We are you, and you are us–we could not harm you, nor would you harm others, for they are of you, also. Essence knows this.

Words may be spoken in haste and with little thought as to impact. But words–in the physical plane, are easier to mend than are actions. Granted, this is not true of all planes, but for the physical it is. Therefore, words uttered in haste, can be erased, with time; but actions may take many life times to “correct”.

If you find yourself contemplating “revenge” of any type–any type of “getting even”–are you responding through ego, for essence knows that balance will/has been generated, and does not seek “revenge”.

If reviewing an incident from the current life, then must you consider whether the feelings following the act were quiet satisfaction , or “loud” smug satisfaction that you wished to share with all around you.

What we discuss here is important to all, but not all are far enough along the path to want to separate the actions so thoroughly. There are those who still wish to experience the plays within the physical realm. For them to do so, do they need to “forget” the dichotomy of self, and live through ego, for the ego is the character in their play that they designed. So for them to respond through ego is fine–there is no “wrong” to how you respond. If your response is to reach out and strike someone, then that is fine. That is your choice. We do not judge, we merely state what occurs when one remains “in character”.

For those who wish to analyze their lives, do we also say fine. For each must do for them what is “right”. Some live lives, and some experience lives. The difference is the fragment’s involvement (in the play). If a fragment would gain the most experience for the life, would they immerse self in their character and truly involve themselves in that life. However, others would change the experience to include the physical and not physical range of experiences. For them, then would the involvement in the physical life be more transitory and divided with their involvement in other planes of awareness such as the astral, equal to or greater than their involvement in the physical. For others, yet again, does their involvement in the physical “dwindle” to little more than observers, as they finish one or two minor tasks before shifting their focus completely to another plane.

It is for those whose involvement in the physical is beginning to wane, that we indicate the duality of the fragment and the ways to differentiate between the actions of the involved and the actions of those not so involved. Is this then clearer?

The questioner speaks of “counting to ten” or “stepping back from the situation” before responding, and this is fine. This allows essence to re-evaluate the response considered and determine if it is indeed the response wanted to give. That it would most likely have been an answer directed through the overleaves is true. But an awareness of the duality would allow a more loving answer to be considered, if not given.

Even those not aware of the duality of self, when stepped back from the “problem” are they able to, sometimes, shift their energies to a more quieter mode and project an answer or response that is perhaps not so volatile. For fear an often push one to the extreme of their responding center, and time taken to calm self, can allow self to move toward a more neutral position of that response center–whether it be the movingcenter, the vocal/communications center, emotional center, etc.

All and any response is appropriate, depending on who you are “playing” and in what play you are. But if you would control your character more adroitly, we would recommend the “backing away” from the scene until a more calm demeanor is found, and then a returning to the character and the play.

If one would shout and leap for joy or triumph over some action taken or communication sent, or deal won, then would we rejoice with them, for they are who they wish to be, doing what they wish to do. If another would weep or cry revenge over actions taken “against” them, then, again, will we rail and rage with them, for, again, their actions are appropriate for them.

We try and guide you towards a path of awareness and balance, but shown the path, it is still your choice as to where you will go and how you will get there .

For more on determining when you’re acting through essence or ego, see the book:  Michael on Life and Relationships.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s