DEFINITIONS

Attuniment is defined in The Compass of The Circle of Esse as:

"The personal communion, communication and interrelating between an individual and ESSE (prayer and meditation being type examples)."

In order to be able to even begin to fully grasp what this means in its fullest depth, one must first fully grasp what is, and is not, meant here by the terms 'individual' and 'Esse'.

'Individual', as it is used here, is simply another term for 'ego'.

Ego is defined in The Compass as:

"The sense of 'I'; 'Me', as compared with and distinguished from 'You' and 'Others'; the sense of individual, individuated, unique and isolated 'self' as compared with and distinguished from all that is not 'self'."

(And, in order to better understand this definition, a further definition of 'self' from The Compass is helpful:

"Sense of Self - Awareness of individuated and integrated identity:

SELF - Sense of Self at the level of the Unitive Whole.

'self' - Sense of Self at the level of the EGO."

The distinction between SELF and 'self' is significant here, SELF being the Sense of Self at the Esse level and 'self' being the Sense of Self at the level of the Ego).

It is critical to note that these definitions mean just what they say, fully, but nothing more and nothing else. Many judgmental and negative connotations have attached to these terms over time implying something inherently 'inferior' or 'bad' or 'wrong' in the ego or 'self'. There is nothing wrong or failed or morally inferior in the ego level 'self' - it is a manifestation of Esse and if it weren't fully right it wouldn't exist (and the likes of us wouldn't even be here having to struggle so valiantly trying to figure out what it all means). There are reasons for these connotations, and they derive from the ego level itself, misapprehending and over estimating (as it is so wont to do) its importance in the scheme of things, and thereby leading itself away from genuine understanding. So, when contemplating these levels with respect to Attuniment, make it a point to not lose sight of this. Banish all thoughts of negative connotations as to your own ego, and perceive it simply as the Sense of Self operating at the ego level.

(It is true that the so-called negative qualities of the ego are what get in the way of the ego recognizing its direct participation in Esse - which is why they are perceived as negative - and thus to be gotten past. But in getting past them, seeing them as being anything more insidious than simply the quite normal and proper impediments they are - seeing them as horrible or terrible or sinful and immoral - is not only not helpful, but is outright counter-productive.)

ESSE (as defined in The Compass):

"The Greater Being, spiritual and corporeal, as a Unity, which consists of the totality of its parts, and to which each individual part directly belongs; Higher or Greater Power or Whole; Supreme Being; First Cause; Prime Mover Unmoved; in their broadest and fully non-particularized sense, God or Allah or Buddha or Krishna or Lord, etc. (Each of these definitions is an approximation. All of them taken together is still an approximation. They all point in the desired direction, but none, nor all of them, is the full actuality of what is being pointed at. ESSE is the illimitable and not fully knowable quality underlying all existence, and no definition or description can be fully accurate. Any definition or description, including those herein, is to be taken as a symbolic hint rather than as a literal accuracy)."

Okay, these are the necessary definitions of terms, as best words (or at least our best attempt with them) can provide.

CIRCULARITY?

Some of this no doubt appears circular in its presentation and reasoning. That's because the subject, itself, is circular (that's why it's called The Circle). There is no avoiding this circularity.

However, this patent circularity need not be the cause of terminal discouragement in one's search for understanding. The learning involved here is like a process of osmosis. It is a process of gradual absorption, quite often at a non-conscious level. You immerse yourself in the subject at the entry point, and come out at the other end having learned. Yet in the meantime, you're not really sure what you're doing or how well you are succeeding. But if you persist, you finally do succeed and come out the other end clearly knowing you did.

It can also be likened to trying to open a window sash which is stuck closed. You pry and wiggle at one side, and then the other, and back again, with much seemingly wasted effort and consternation, and then, all of a sudden it breaks loose and flies upward (with much surprise to you and just as you are about to give up on it and break it out with a hammer).You may never know the specifics of just how each wiggle and pry (and curse) finally led to the breakthrough, but at that point it doesn't matter. It's open. That's all that matters. (This process is sometimes described as, "three steps forward and two steps back").

ATONEMENT?

One final point as to the term 'Attuniment'. A better term for this endeavor would be "At-One-Ment" (being 'at one'). However, this phraseology has already been conscripted elsewhere - 'Atonement'. This term has had such truly inappropriate and counter-productive denotations attached to it ('sin' and 'atoning' for it), and with such tenacity, trying to get past those denotations is probably more effort than it is worth. And, being 'attuned' with Esse is, in essence, synonymous with being 'at one', albeit with a slightly different (and possibly less helpful) coloration. It may prove useful to bear this in mind.

WHEN - WHERE

Attuniment can (and should) be viewed in two ways - as a specific endeavor and as a general accomplishment.

As a specific endeavor, the setting and timing are similar to what people usually associate with prayer and meditation. The best setting is one of peace, quiet and solitude ("go into thine own inner closet"), wherein one can invest one's entire being into it without outside distractions. At least once a day (more often if possible), in sessions of perhaps thirty minutes duration each, is highly appropriate.

After some period of these at least daily sessions, one will begin becoming aware of being 'at-one' in other settings and times, as he is engaged in other daily activities. This becomes a state of being more than an endeavor. Put another way, it is an ever developing awareness of being in a state of 'at-one-ment' at times when one is not actively egaged in the specific endeavor we call Attuniment - a realization that the underlying connection of 'at-one-ment' has always been there - and always will be - but the ego level had simply been unaware of it previously.

Attuniment as a specific endeavor can be a rewardingly engaging activity and, thus, an end in itself. But it can also be a means to the end of attaining - and maintaining - a broader and more persistent awareness of 'at-one-ment' during every millisecond of one's life. 'At-one-ment' is the underlying actuality. Attuniment is a means for becoming, and remaining, aware of it.

And, Attuniment as a specific endeavor will be found to be an ongoing necessity. The ego level is both insistent and tenacious in avoiding awareness of 'at-one-ment', and is very, very good at finding ways to not only block it out initially, but also to knock it down after it has begun, and even after it has developed substantially. A firm committment to at least daily Attuniment helps to overcome this tendency of the ego level to cause a "backslide" (including the ego level's insistence that such daily Attuniment is not really necessary or can be put off "for awhile").

IMAGINATION AS LUBRICANT

You are of Esse - a direct manifestation of Esse. If you are a typical human level ego, you are probably not too sure of this (and maybe barely, or not even, aware of it). But it's true.

The more constricted your ability is to see and accept this reality, the more difficulty you have 'picturing' it in your mind. And, conversely (perversely?), the less able you are to 'picture' this reality in your mind, the less able you are to accept it, because you can't see it clearly enough. (More circularity!). In order to accept it you must be able to see it, and in order to see it, you must be able to accept it.

Impassable conundrum?!

No.

When you come up against a high, solid wall, which cannot be gotten through or over, what do you do? You go around it, of course - however difficult that might be.

One possible way around this wall is to force yourself (or at least try) to accept the reality in your mind, so as to be able to eventually see it. This is what many traditional religions try to do. It doesn't work very well. Not only is it impossible to genuinely believe that which you don't truly find believable within yourself (and thus much hypocrisy and futile self-flagellation for doubting), but the version of reality insisted upon by many religions is so ego-based as to distort the ultimate reality seen to the point of not only not being helpful, but actually counter-productive. (Some manage to do it this way. But very few. And when they do, their own religions drive them out as heretics).

A far better (and pleasant) way around is imagination.

Imagination - 'imaging' in one's mind. 'Picturing'.

We all have this ability, and we all do it.

You are of Esse - directly. And so is your imagination. If you can imagine it, it is possible somewhere within Esse. (It may not be possible at the Earth body/ego level, but it's possible somewhere within the totality of Esse). If it weren't possible, you couldn't imagine it.

If you are having difficulty accepting or picturing your direct connection with Esse, so as to become 'at-one' with it (Attuniment), go around that seemingly impassable barrier. Play a pretend game for awhile. Imagine what it would be like if it were true. Just pretend. If you can do this, you will eventually see.

Having trouble with such far out imagining?

Practice in other ways. Look at the clouds in the sky and see things in them (faces, animals, whatever). Look at the grain in a piece of wood or the surface of a wall with a variegated coating and see these things in them. Watch trees moving in the wind and see them become animate objects (people, animals, monsters). Listen to the ocean surf or a running stream of water, and hear the intelligible voices speaking from within them. Do this. It's good practice. A good lubricant for inner seeing.

Understand that when you do see and hear things in the clouds or elsewhere, it is your own mind projecting and imposing order on an outer randomness. Those faces and voices aren't actually there until your own mind puts them there - but then they are there, for you.

And understand that in doing this you are directly participating in the power of Esse and in a primary process in Esse's manifestation of physical reality. That's what Esse does. It projects and imposes order on the otherwise random chaos of its being, out of its own mind, and thus physical reality is. You are one of those projections - real because Esse has seen (imagined, thought) you into existence. And, on a much smaller scale, you are doing the same thing when you imagine.

Can you imagine things into existence like Esse does? Yes, in some ways. Your ability to do this, of course, is limited, where Esse's is not (you are a finite manifestation of Esse's imagination whereas Esse is infinite). But, within those limits, you can do it. People do it every day.

But more importantly (far more importantly), using your imagination in this way loosens up your ability of inner seeing - exercising your power of mental creation, a direct participation in the fundamental essence of Esse, also exercises your awareness of Esse and that direct participation.

WHAT (AND WHAT NOT) TO ASK FOR

Prayer.

Many people pray.

Many religions tout the efficacy of prayer - indeed, even insist upon it as a fundamental necessity in dealing with God.

Lawyers pray a lot. Every time a legal action is drafted and filed with a court of law, it contains at its end a 'Prayer' wherein the party 'prays' for some type of judicial relief.

(The mere juxtaposition of communicating with God and what lawyers do is an instantly troubling and disturbing thought, isn't it?).

There is a direct similarity between a lawyer's 'prayer' in court, and most people's prayers to God. They are asking for something - imploring, begging. And that 'something' is quite often something very immediate in the person's life (money, health, getting someone else to think and do 'right' according to the prayor's definition of that concept, a new car, a new bicycle, etc, etc.).

The only difference between a lawyer's 'prayer' in court, and prayers to God of the type just mentioned, is that the lawyer is more limited in what he can beg for (usually money), and is usually more direct and blunt (honest?) in acknowledging that he is asking for so worldly and mundane ('ego'istic, 'self'ish) a thing as money.

To the extent prayer to God is of this type (quite often - too often - a great extent), such prayer is not Attuniment. (And, to the extent Attuniment is conceived of as being anything like this, such a conception is not only totally erroneous but directly counter-productive). This is ego-based prayer.

On the other hand, prayer to God sometimes (not often - but sometimes) is conceived by the prayor as being simply a process of 'communing' (becoming 'at-one'?) with God, and nothing else - no asking or begging for anything in particular or immediately beneficial in any way to the ego level of the prayor. Such prayer, of course, is the very definition of Attuniment. It is not just a form of Attuniment, it is Attuniment, by another name.

There are two basic problems with ego-based prayer.

First, it is not Attuniment, and is counter-productive to it.

The purpose of Attuniment is to become 'at-one' with Esse. And, ultimately, 'at-one-ment' is the means employed. It is the ego level becoming aware of its direct connection with and participation in Esse. It is the ego level submerging its individuated 'self' awareness into the Esse level SELF awareness and the two levels merging into an awareness as (and thereby becoming) an ultimate unity.

Ego-based prayer is not this. Indeed, it is just the opposite. It is the ego level reaffirming its distinction and differentiation (separation) from the Esse level (and imploring special consideration from the Esse level for its individual, ego-based, desires?). Such reaffirmation of the distinction and separation between the Esse level and the ego level accomplishes its logical consequence. It reaffirms and reinforces that distinction and separation - the exact opposite of the 'at-one-ment' Attuniment is all about.

If one's purpose is to reinforce the distinction between one's ego level and the Esse level (and to try to get a special, super-natural 'edge' on others at that level?), then such prayer is most assuredly the way to go. It will do that quite effectively.

But, if one's purpose is to resolve the agony of such pounding questions as "why am I here?", "where is here?" and "what's it all about?", such prayer is not only not helpful, but antagonistic to such purpose.

The second problem with ego-based prayer is that it actually can, and often does, work. We all, by the very nature of things, are not just directly connected with Esse but, in actuality, are an inherent part - simply one aspect or facet - of it. As such, we participate, directly, in the actuality of Esse, including its power of creation by way of mentation. (Of course, our ability with creative mentation is not infinite, as is Esse's, and is differently manifested in each of us, but it is there.) On occasion, there are individuals whose inner make-up, together with fortunate timing aligning itself with fundamental flows of energy, who pray for some ego-based benefit, and actually get a direct response. The difficulty in this is expressed by the old maxim, "Beware what you ask for - you just might get it." Many (most? all?) such direct responses to ego-based prayer turn out as being what at first appeared to be a 'silver lining' ending up as a 'dark cloud' - sometimes a very dark cloud of overwhelming dimensions - in a way never expected.

And for those who have never experienced such a direct response to ego-based prayer, positive or negative, consider: God always answers such prayers - it's just that he usually says, "No" (and be thankful he does.).

So, assuming one's purpose is to attain genuine Attuniment, what, if anything, can one safely ask for in the process?

There is only one thing one can appropriately ask for in Attuniment. We will express it several ways here, but all these expressions are merely different ways of saying the exact, same thing.

1). Understanding; enlightenment; at-one-ment; (the ability to 'see' that all three of these terms are synonyms - they all mean and point to the same thing).

2). Assistance from the Esse level in submerging the ego level into the totality of Esse, so that the ego-based sense of individuation and separation will fall away.

3). Unremitting patience in the ego in attaining Attuniment (including a recognition of the fallacy evoked by the homily, "Lord, give me patience - and give it to me now").

4). "Don't give me what I want (I can't trust that) - give me what I need (to attain Attuniment)."

5). Unburden me of all pre-conceived expectations of what I will or should 'see' or feel when Attuniment is happening - when I am truly being 'at-one'. Help me not to miss or reject it because I don't 'see' what I expected to see, or 'see' it in a manner I didn't expect or cannot accept.

THE MORALITY TRAP

Morality. Good and bad (evil?). Right and wrong. Godly an ungodly (satanic?).

These concepts permeate ideas of spirituality and religiosity at a fundamental level - seemingly throughout the world. They are an inherent given - a built in element of the background scenery - whenever spirituality and religiosity are discussed, or even thought about. At least for most people.*

The vast majority of people, to one extent or another, think in terms of morality. Only a very few specifically and distinctly do not (thereby being not immoral but amoral - a big difference). When seeking to become 'at-one' with Esse, which group do you think is more likely to succeed? The vast majority? Or the nonconformist few?

Consider: the idea of a fundamental struggle (conflict) between God and Satan, good and evil, is the basis for very powerful human drama - theater. There couldn't be a better basis for powerfully dramatic conflict - especially when the prize at stake is prescribed as being one's very soul.

Yet, both Sidhartha Gautamma and Jesus of Nazareth seemed to teach in terms of morality. (Please note we have not referred to the former as Buddha nor the latter as Christ - they each, quite accurately, specifically disavowed being any such thing). But did they really?

Maybe. More likely not nearly so much as most believe.

To the extent either of them spoke in terms of morality (or a soul to be 'saved' and thus the need for morality in order to save it, or the need for a 'Savior' to compensate for our inevitable failures in morality), their reasons for doing so (or seeming to do so) are not what is usually understood.

In each case, their own words bespeak a powerful understanding of the typical ego level misperception of morality and its function and ultimate purpose. There are clear indications they fully understood that morality does not consist of what we tend to think it does, and that we not only tend to misconceive it to the point of irrelevance, but we often get it so backwards that our conception is downright dysfunctional to the intended purpose. (Many of Jesus' parables appear to teach a morality which seems to us to be, if not downright inscrutable, at least unfair and unjust. Can God truly be so unjust - or at least appear to us to be that way? Or have we perhaps not fully understood what was actually being taught?).

There may be at least three reasons they seemed to speak in terms of judgmental morality even though they also spoke in terms which indicated they meant something else.

One, quite often they just seemed to so speak to their hearers, who were simply misunderstanding what they were actually trying to convey. They were speaking then (as we are now) on a subject which words simply cannot adequately convey.

Two, as enlightened as they were, they, too, were still ego/body manifestations and thus had their own ego level within them (they wouldn't have even been here if this weren't true). The ego level within all of us - including them - is, by definition, caught up in the ego level theater to one extent or another - more in most, less in some. To that extent within them, as little as it might have been, they, too, retained vestiges of ego-based misconceptions of judgmental morality. They couldn't totally escape it either. So, at times, to a greater or lesser extent, they actually believed it, too.

Three, they understood the value of Magik - mimicry - as expressed in the homily, "Assume a virtue though you have it not." Appropriate conduct, repeated often enough, will bring about the desired thought processes - state of mind (being). If one's goal is the enlightenment of 'at-one-ment' (the 'at-one-ment' of enlightenment), the means is detachment of one's identity from the ego level so as to allow one's identity with the Esse level to become clear. Such detachment requires (and results from) focusing on the 'not-self'. Focusing on other people, rather than on one's 'self', is an example of such detachment, and a very good way to attain it. Focusing on others, rather than oneself, is also what we refer to as being 'moral'. If one practices what we call morality, one could find himself 'at-one' in the process (unless, of course, he does it 'self'ishly).

And therein lies one prong of the forked, dysfunctional trap in an inappropriate focus on morality. If one is being moral as a means of saving one's 'soul', one's ultimate purpose is totally 'self'ish (my soul). This is not only not helpful in attaining "at-one-ment", it is directly counter-productive. (The commonly understood meaning of 'soul' is an artifact of the ego - indeed, another word for it. The only true soul any of us has is Esse, which is in no way in danger or in any need of being saved).

The second prong of the morality trap is the judgmentalness we invariably and necessarily put into it. Rather than seeing a non-judgmental and neutral yin/yan (north/south, left/right,), we see a right and wrong, good and bad, God and Satan.

This judgmentalness is ego-based, not Esse based. Esse just is - and it manifests itself into physical reality by way of complementary opposites - polarities [see: Fundamental Polarities (Complementary Opposites)].

But Esse does not judge - it just manifests and is. (And if we are going to pass judgment on manifestations of Esse, how can we deem any aspect of its manifestation as anything other than "right"?). If we wish to become 'at-one' with Esse, we must detach from the ego based tendency to judge - otherwise we will never get there.

EDIFICATION AND ELEVATION

Our very existence as individuated ego awarenesses is, at least for us, a state of being. But this state of being is the direct result of a state of mind - an Esse state of mind. So, at base, state of mind and state of being are one and the same thing.

Being 'at-one' with Esse is one possible state of mind available to us. When attained, it is also a state of being for us, just as it is for Esse - because at that moment, however fleeting, we are aware that we are Esse. But in order for our ego level to attain that state of mind, it must become the appropriate state of being.

Once again the circularity of it all reappears. Attainment of the appropriate state of mind requires attainment of the appropriate state of being, and vice versa.

The solution, again, is like a process of osmosis.

This is what Jesus and Gautama were trying to teach us.

This is where what we call morality comes into play (via the value of Magik - mimicry).

"Assume a virtue though you have it not".

Conduct yourself in as elevated and non-'self' focused (moral?) a manner as you possibly can bring yourself to do, no matter how unnatural it feels or how much it goes against your grain and conflicts with the way you seem to really think and feel. Such non-'self' focused conduct will tend to imprint itself on your thinking and being, and thus assist in your transformation from ego identification to Esse identification.

But in doing this, be wary of falling into the morality trap. The goal is to be non-'self' focused, not necessarily 'moral' as the ego level understands that term. The world is the way it is supposed to be, even with all its seeming injustices, atrocities and dysfunctions - these are all elements of powerful cosmic theater. It is not in need of being saved (and even if it were, that would be a job for the Esse level, not the ego level likes of us). Yes, avoid doing and being 'self'ish things and thinking 'self'ish thoughts. But don't allow your ego level to mistake itself for the Esse level in so doing. (Discerning the seemingly fuzzy distinction here between non-'self'ish being and 'self'ish morality is the very thrust of the otherwise inscrutable parables of Jesus).

And there are some other things you should do along with changing your conduct and thinking, so as to further enhance your ability for Esse identification rather than ego identification.

Provide yourself, as much as possible, with edifying and elevating inputs. And, conversely, avoid allowing yourself, as much as possible, any inputs which are dis-edifying, or even just non-edifying. Be very 'picky' about what music you listen to and all forms of entertainment. (As computer programmers say, "GIGO - garbage in, garbage out".)

This emphasis on appropriate inputs includes, of course, your surroundings. Keep them as edifying as possible. And definitely avoid frequenting surroundings which are dis-edifying.

This also includes relationships with other people - at least daily or closely personal ones. (How can you soar with the eagles when you're scratching with turkeys?).

VALIDATION

Attuniment ('at-one-ment', 'enlightenment', 'seeing') is, by its very nature, difficult - a struggle.

One of the major reasons (although not the only one) it is so, is that what one 'sees' is so incredible - so unfathomable - to the ego level (which is the way it must be in order for the ego level to even exist).
[see: Souvenir Program for the Cosmic Theater]

This can be 'crazy-making'. One can feel as if he's completely 'going off the deep end' (which, from the ego level point of view is precisely what he is doing). Such a feeling at the ego level is distressing to say the least. Quite often it becomes a situation of unbearable inner conflict and confusion, a hell house of mental mirrors in which the Self gets lost in an endlessly reiterative and circularly self-referential process. Not fun! (Although great theater).

It appears as though a single individuated ego cannot break out of this process by itself. Without some outside assistance, the lone ego will remain forever trapped within its own house of mirrors.

The needed assistance resides at two levels.

The first level of assistance is Esse. Indeed, this level of assistance is absolutely required. One cannot succeed without it. Attuniment is the way to obtain it.

The second level of assistance is at the ego level. This involves at least one other person who is able to validate, in a fully credible manner, that what one is 'seeing' is not an indication that one is 'crazy' or 'going crazy'. (There may be a few who are, or have been, exceptions to having this need for ego level validation - perhaps Gautamma or Jesus - but if there are, which is at best dubious and certainly not proven, they are very, very few. We don't know of any, personally).

One method of such validation is reading appropriate writings by others.

Another is to find one other person with whom one can directly communicate with respect to this process - one who fully recognizes the value of the process in the first place, and who is sufficiently along the process within himself that his responses will be accepted with significant credibility.

The materials posted at www.esse.org are appropriate writings for the first method. (They are not the only such writings available in the world - there are many such in many places - but they are directly on point).

And, the website itself is available to facilitate the second method.

THE THEATER OF LEARNING

There are two doors next to each other in a hallway.

A sign above one says, "Heaven" and a sign above the other says, "Lecture on Heaven". The door marked "Lecture" has an endless line of people entering it, many of whom return time after time. Only an occasional, solitary individual enters the one marked "Heaven", and they very seldom come out, and when they do they go right back in.

A very common (and understandable) role people get caught up in is that of 'student' - forever searching and seeking and learning about Esse and the meaning of it all. Never quite "getting it". Always looking for yet another book or sermon or guru to finally explain it clearly.

There is nothing wrong with this role in life. It is as good a role to play out as any.

But it is an ego level role being played out.

If one has already become so enmeshed with the fundamental questions about life and reality as to find this writing on Attuniment worth reading, and if he follows the guidance provided herein, his answers will be provided for him within himself. Indeed, they have probably already been provided him, and his ego level has just been unable or unwilling to accept them as being credible and valid (real).

If one wishes to enter the door marked "Heaven", that's what he ultimately must do - enter it.

Searching and seeking and learning can be a valuable preparation for this ultimate step. But eventually the step must be taken - and it can appear to be a major leap off a very high cliff into a bottomless abyss as one peruses it from the ego level vantage point. (Only after making that 'leap' does one see, from the Esse level vantage point, that it was no big deal at all).

The door is wide open.

Bon Voyage!

____________

* The Middle East appears to be the locality where all of today's major religions had their source, thousands of years ago. Even then (especially then?) the dichotomy between the Esse level and the ego level were clearly recognized. And, the two possible vantage points from which to view that dichotomy - from the vantage point of the Esse level or from that of the ego level - were in place.

The ego-based viewpoint (that of judging the ego level as being a "fall from grace" which can only be rectified by appeasing and siding with God in the God vs. Satan conflict) developed into Zoroastrianism, which branched off into divergent religions including Judaism, which in turn branched off into yet more divergent religions, including Christianity and Islam, each one of which has branched off into yet more divergent sects and sub-faiths. But throughout all the branching and divergences, the basic perception of God vs. Satan, good vs. evil persisted intact. This ego-based perception spread primarily westward geographically.

The Esse-based viewpoint (that of perceiving the ego level as being simply a facet of the Esse level, which facet manifests itself in physical form by way of a judgmentally neutral and mutually complementary yin and yan, point and counter-point) spread primarily eastward geographically into such religions as Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism.

Needless to say, as each viewpoint precipitated out into the various specific religions, neither did so in an absolutely pure form (with the possible exception of Taoism). Most religions have a blend of both viewpoints within them, some (primarily oriental) having more of an emphasis on the Esse-based and others (primarily occidental) having more of an emphasis on the ego-based , with the blends being different in each, and with seemingly irresoluble conflicts within each as a result of the blending.