PDA

View Full Version : The Ego



AutumnW
8th September 2013, 16:06
I'm just thinking about ego here. (I know-- me, me, I, I, I :o). I (there I go again) think it would be a good idea to discuss ego.

Does ego have a place, a purpose? Have you ever met a truly ego-less person? What was that like? I have my own ideas about this, but would like to hear your opinions first, because I am sooooo humble! :p

Dorjezigzag
8th September 2013, 18:08
There is a lot I(;)) could say about this, but I think I would like to start with this quote from John Lennon who I think encapsulates the possible negative consequences of trying to destroy ego.

So the quote below is what John Lennon said,


I got the message that I should destroy my ego, and I did, you know. I was slowly putting myself together round about Maharishi time. Bit by bit over a two-year period, I had destroyed me ego. I didn't believe I could do anything. I just was nothing. I was ****. Then Derek [Taylor, Apple press officer] tripped me out at his house after he got back from L.A. He sort of said, ``You're all right,'' and pointed out which songs I had written: ``You wrote this,'' and ``You said this,'' and ``You are intelligent, don't be frightened.'' The next week I went to Derek's with Yoko, and we tripped again, and she made me realize that I was me and that it's all right. That was it; I started fighting again, being a loudmouth again and saying, ``I can do this. **** it

Rest of the interview is here (http://taz4158.tripod.com/johnint.html)

AutumnW
8th September 2013, 18:21
Have you noticed this phenomenon? People who claim to be ego-less, talking about themselves all the time? Being self absorbed is a bit annoying, granted, but it's a tough world and that's how some people deal with it.

But to be fixated on being ego-less and competing with others about who has the least ego? It seems kind of weird and paradoxical. If there was an award ceremony for the person who had the least ego, a person with schizophrenia would win the trophy. He/she likely wouldn't accept the award because the ceremony would be too overwhelming. Their limited sense of self couldn't withstand that kind of attention--not necessarily because they are 'humble' either.

A humble person isn't without ego. They have a healthy ego that's in proper proportion to their other spiritual and psychological functions. We need ego to individuate, recognize and love other 'selves'. Without ego, you have no proper 'self.' It's great to capture a sense of non-ego while meditating. Maybe it's the only time we catch a glimpse of the eternal. But should anybody be aiming to live in that state all of the time? I don't know. Maybe I have the wrong take on this, but trying to get rid of ego, seems to be a bit of a spiritual trap.

AutumnW
8th September 2013, 18:33
There is a lot I(;)) could say about this, but I think I would like to start with this quote from John Lennon who I think encapsulates the possible negative consequences of trying to destroy ego.

So the quote below is what John Lennon said,


I got the message that I should destroy my ego, and I did, you know. I was slowly putting myself together round about Maharishi time. Bit by bit over a two-year period, I had destroyed me ego. I didn't believe I could do anything. I just was nothing. I was ****. Then Derek [Taylor, Apple press officer] tripped me out at his house after he got back from L.A. He sort of said, ``You're all right,'' and pointed out which songs I had written: ``You wrote this,'' and ``You said this,'' and ``You are intelligent, don't be frightened.'' The next week I went to Derek's with Yoko, and we tripped again, and she made me realize that I was me and that it's all right. That was it; I started fighting again, being a loudmouth again and saying, ``I can do this. **** it

Rest of the interview is here (http://taz4158.tripod.com/johnint.html)

Thanks for the response, Dorjezigzag! Haven't read this before. However, I do have a schizophrenic sibling who is in a perpetual state of, for lack of better terms, non-being. There's not a damned thing she can do about it, except take meds. It's not a state to strive for. John Lennon, by what you have posted here chose to temporarily experience this state.

In your film clip, I noticed you included a segment about the toroidal nature of consciousness. It seems to me that the Godhead can be expressed this way...We are fragments that begin at the center of the mind of that Godhead, or God, or whatever you call the Great Creative Consciousness. We expand as far as we can away from it, learning as much as we can, individuating as much as is possible, before we begin our circular route back, with all of the creative and mental contributions we have generated, by being separate from it. We need ego for that!

meeradas
8th September 2013, 18:37
You do know greybeard's thread (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?860), do you?

AutumnW
8th September 2013, 18:41
Hi Meeradas, No, I'm not aware of his thread. Am I being redundant, redundant?:o

Dorjezigzag
8th September 2013, 18:43
I think if someone thinks they are better than they are and are boastful it is a problem but it can go the other way, it is almost like that Japanese custom when everyone is trying to bow lower. It all becomes a bit contrieved and unnatural.

There is this extremely good football( soccer in N. America) player in Europe and he does come across as a bit arrogant but he came out with this quote that got me thinking.

"If I could, I'd vote for myself. I am what I am, and I'm happy with that. Being too humble isn't good. In Portugal we say that too much humility is vanity."
Cristiano Ronaldo

ulli
8th September 2013, 18:43
I'm all for ego, at least the healthy aspect of it. The unhealthy part I would call self-importance.
Some of the ego-less crowd make lots of general statements, speaking on behalf of others,
and I have a problem with that, as those statements are debatable and often quite untrue.

The art of living is to alternate between ego and one-ness states, or better still,
attempt to have both levels active simultaneously.

AutumnW
8th September 2013, 19:01
Thanks Ulli, Differentiating oneself from others, based on ego assessment, is fragile ego in action. It's a form of arrogance. I have some ego distortions that show up when I feel criticized or feel the social evil eye trained on me. It starts with feeling massively hurt feelings, then I get angry, followed by arrogance. I usually snap out of it fairly quickly. But that reaction serves as a reminder that the ego wants to be supported back to a healthy place.

ghostrider
8th September 2013, 19:18
ego has it's place , when it's out of control , it can destroy a civilazation ... when put in it's place it can change the world ...imagine the richest person in the world having a change of heart overnight , waking up to world hunger/homeless people , or any human tragedy, they with their money and ego could move mountains and plunge ahead to change the situation , and their ego would help them battle through until everyone has food or a home , etc ... if ego is all about the one and poop on everyone else , well our world leaders are a perfect picture of what the end result of that is ... I think of the movie pretty woman, she caused a change of heart in the man who instead of destroying companies that build ships, he partnered ( against his inner circle) with ship builders and built ships and saved jobs ... someone with wealth and ego pointed in the right direction could be an asset to the greater good ...

AutumnW
8th September 2013, 19:25
I wonder about the richest. What exactly IS their problem? I hate to say it, but I think some of them actually get off on suffering. They are psychopathic. I wonder about the ego structure of the psychopath. On a pie chart their ego probably takes up 3/4 of the pie. There isn't any room left over for much of anything else. Being ruthless takes up a lot of their intellectual processing too. Bummer to be them. But really nasty to live on a planet controlled, in large part, by them. Oh well...I have a feeling that that particular problem might sort itself out in the next few years. You know if there was a major flood, so many of them have waterfront property...Oh, that's not nice, is it?

Veiled Rain
8th September 2013, 19:59
Greetings all

Ego can be both a bane and a beneficial force(and it is only the human species that suffers from the malady of over-abundance of ego)
Just to know where the nacissistic tendancies lie--can head you in the right direction
Each time I think of ego and its detrimental points--I am reminded of the myth of narcissus---falling in love with his own reflection to his demise---the epitome of ego in context

Once we become mindful of the attributes it exerts in our day to day lives--and over our thoughts and actions---we become able to contain and grow in new realms of tranquility and harmony
But yes-it does appear ego has it's place--it exists possibly to allow us to see where we falter
As long as it does not rule you--it will work in tandem with the psyche and through this we have evolution of the human spirit

Much Love

greybeard
8th September 2013, 20:15
The ego is the biggest con artist you will ever encounter.
It will miss lead you into thinking things that are untrue are true.
Its function is divisive and judgemental.
All good things that are attributed to ego come from Higher Self.
The ego being a "me first" operator is not capable of true love and compassion.
The ego always has an agenda.
Positive creativity and all that is good comes from your Higher Self---then the ego, the me, rushes in to claim credit for the end result.
The ego has no humility and believes its always right.
ACIM says "The moment you take up a position know that you are identifying with an illusion."
also "The last resort of the ego is specialness"
We are all equal with different abilities, we all come from the same place and return there.
Chris
Ps Pride in accomplishment and a good self image as long as founded on true estimate of this is not ego and is healthy.

STR
8th September 2013, 20:34
all about the ego (http://lueanswers.blogspot.com/)
I'm just thinking about ego here. (I know-- me, me, I, I, I :o). I (there I go again) think it would be a good idea to discuss ego.

Does ego have a place, a purpose? Have you ever met a truly ego-less person? What was that like? I have my own ideas about this, but would like to hear your opinions first, because I am sooooo humble! :p

greybeard
8th September 2013, 20:52
I'm just thinking about ego here. (I know-- me, me, I, I, I :o). I (there I go again) think it would be a good idea to discuss ego.

Does ego have a place, a purpose? Have you ever met a truly ego-less person? What was that like? I have my own ideas about this, but would like to hear your opinions first, because I am sooooo humble! :p

Hi Autumn W
Yes i have met several ego less souls.
Eckhart Tolle, Dr David Hawkins, Dr Goels.
They were exuding peace.

Ramana said "You can tell the level of your spiritual progress by the degree of silence in your mind"

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?860-Enlightenment-The-Ego-what-is-it-How-to-transcend-it.&p=723154&viewfull=1#post723154
Re: Enlightenment: The Ego, what is it? How to transcend it.

The collected works of Ramana Maharshi

Page 42 (Who am I)

16.What is the nature of the Self?

What exists in truth is the Self alone.
The world, the individual soul and God are appearances in it.
Like silver in mother-of-pearl, these three appear at the same time and disappear at the same time.

The Self is that where there is absolutely no "I" thought.
That is called "Silence".
The Self itself is the world; the Self it self is "I"; the Self itself is God; all is Shiva, the Self.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The late Ramana Maharshi is the most respected enlightened sage and quoted by virtually every enlightened soul.
Ramesh Balsakar called him "The guru's guru" and kept his photo in prominence at his lectures.

Chris

greybeard
8th September 2013, 20:59
I think when discussing egoless state a bench mark a definition is helpful.
This is one of the best definitions I have come across.


Enlightenment - A direct, succinct account of what occurs...

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?43027-Enlightenment-A-direct-succinct-account-of-what-occurs...&p=456904&viewfull=1#post456904

AutumnW
8th September 2013, 21:13
Yep Greybeard.. I refer to what some call ego-less as 'being humble.' The humblest people have the healthiest, least fragile egos. It's a matter of definition. Still, bearing that in mind, it is still strange to hear people having contests about who is the most ego-less--even if they mean humble, by my definition.

Dorjezigzag
8th September 2013, 21:13
The ego is the biggest con artist you will ever encounter.
It will miss lead you into thinking things that are untrue are true.
Its function is divisive and judgemental.
All good things that are attributed to ego come from Higher Self.
The ego being a "me first" operator is not capable of true love and compassion.
The ego always has an agenda.
Positive creativity and all that is good comes from your Higher Self---then the ego, the me, rushes in to claim credit for the end result.
The ego has no humility and believes its always right.
ACIM says "The moment you take up a position know that you are identifying with an illusion."
also "The last resort of the ego is specialness"
We are all equal with different abilities, we all come from the same place and return there.
Chris
Ps Pride in accomplishment and a good self image as long as founded on true estimate of this is not ego and is healthy.

Well thats not the definition in the dictionary

I think this is really about semantics but

"Ego" is a Latin and Greek (ἑγώ) word meaning "I", often used in English to mean the "self", "identity" or other related concepts.

It may also refer to:
Ego, one of the three constructs in Sigmund Freud's structural model of the psyche which took influence from earlier models by notaries such as Kant
Ego (religion), as defined in various religions in relationship to self, soul etc

You have seen others opinions on the ego with excellent examples and yet you make these sweeping statements which quite frankly are divisive and judgemental. which you claim is one of the functions of the ego, go figure?

Nearly everyone on this thread has said that they have an ego and yet, you say the ego is not capable of true love and compassion, I wonder if my son would agree with your statement

Is perhaps your Ego attached to your own concepts of non-ego.

I think you are confusing the totality of ego with self importance.


Ego can be self imortant but a healthy one is not

I am not a fan of Freud but all belief systems have a belief in the imoprtance of building a healthy sense of self, for instance in Indigeneous south America they talk of The Nagual ( unconscious) and the tonal (conscious, self)

Don't think I am bashing Eastern thought because i am not, I'm a yoga fanatic, I meditate all the time, but in my opinion like in the west Christianity became corrupted through patriarchal dominance the same happened in the East, this combined with poor translation and misunderstanding of the culture from our side.

I have noticed that poor yoga teachers will always harp on about destroying your ego, the good ones will speak of finding your essence.

Although of course some people do have very unhealthy egos but ultimately it is they that have to realise it, to loose the self importance

AutumnW
8th September 2013, 21:33
Eastern religious thought is based around the concept of repeating cycles and Judeo-Christianity is based around the model of linear progression. They BOTH have a lot to learn from one another and each has a huge shadow aspect. Passive acquiescence to the suffering of self and others, as part of the grand scheme of Karma, is a way of thinking that can feed the shadow of the Eastern body of mysticism. This is a question, not a judgement, because I have no clue...do they need a little more ego vitality?

In the West, we are always ready and willing to tell everybody how to live their lives, what is wrong with them, what is right with us...etc... without ever carefully assessing a situation. We go off half-cocked, intervene in the lives of our friends and neighbours, and whole nations, thinking we have all the answers. Waaaayyyy too much ego.

greybeard
8th September 2013, 21:35
Yes its semantics Dorjezigzag
Misunderstandings can creep in because its a different language--- dictionary and enlightened sage.
The ego is incapable of unconditional love--- but your true Self is Love---that applies to everyone without exception.
So when in love that Love is flowing from your true Higher Self.
If its coming from ego there is expectation and very often codependency and emotional blackmail, but that's another long long subject.
Its not unconditional.
Im not saying im right but I suspect late Ramana Maharshi was.
The True Self is masked by the ego.
Chris

Dorjezigzag
8th September 2013, 22:27
All good things that are attributed to ego come from Higher Self

98% of the time I am in agreement with you Greybeard

I think we are probably in more agreement on this than we realise, the problem for me is when you start talking about higher and lower selves then we start creating concepts like the mind body split.

This can actually fragment a personality rather than allowing to achieve a sense of wholeness, a sense of unity.

You can see that if you want to control people it is better that they have no sense of self, with low self esteme, they are more obediant and they are more likely to do as they are told. This is the down side of destroying of self and ego.

Eastern as well as Western religions have all become corrupted by this need to control

Anyway I have recently put up a video when I discuss all these concepts of unity, I would like you to watch it so I can express where I'm coming from.
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?63076-Introducing-Icon-O--clasm-My-Video

AutumnW
8th September 2013, 22:29
Greybeard, Have you read any C.S. Lewis? He's a sage as well, but coming from a Western perspective. I don't agree with all of his beliefs, but in terms of subtlety of thought, emotional refinement, and understanding how thought and emotion interact I don't think there is another Western thinker who can surpass him.

A question I have is about interpersonal love. How does one achieve the heights of love for another person if they themselves are love. They would be complete unto themselves then and love emanating outward wouldn't be necessary. I think our true selves are a number of things, one of which is the ability to love, but also the desire to learn, to take action. Not meaning to be argumentative, just expressing a curiosity.

markpierre
9th September 2013, 02:38
Thanks for the response, Dorjezigzag! Haven't read this before. However, I do have a schizophrenic sibling who is in a perpetual state of, for lack of better terms, non-being. There's not a damned thing she can do about it, except take meds. It's not a state to strive for. John Lennon, by what you have posted here chose to temporarily experience this state.


Who said so? It's definitely not a 'state' to resist. That would cause problems.
Actually, resistance is the natural reaction (and the problem) of ego.
It's actually an inevitable state.
Since you aren't in her experience, you might have trouble characterizing it.
That's reasonable.

turiya
9th September 2013, 03:11
Yep Greybeard.. I refer to what some call ego-less as 'being humble.' The humblest people have the healthiest, least fragile egos. It's a matter of definition. Still, bearing that in mind, it is still strange to hear people having contests about who is the most ego-less--even if they mean humble, by my definition.

I would say beware of those that think they are being most "humbleĒ. They are the most dangerous. Their ego is simply standing on its head. Deception is the game. Deceiving others, and especially in deceiving themselves (in the name of piety, in the name of 'moral decency' & in the names of 'niceness' & 'goodness'). The "humblest people" are the most egoistic people there are, imho. :p They are the most dangerous because they are hiding their ego behind a pretense of false virtue. Being 'humble' is an attempt to hide one's ego, especially from oneself.

Certainly there is a place for the ego. And that is in the backseat of a bus.

Ego is a good tool, it can help in the phase of oneís survival life situations. But when one has grown in years & survival has been firmly established in living a life of affluence, when life has moved well beyond a need to survive, then ego needs to be put in its proper place. When it assumes to be king of the castle, when its true purpose is to be a useful servant of the heart, then it needs to be put in its proper place & that is to take a back seat to the situation. When Heart is recognized as master and ego as its servant, then the kingdom of an individual resonates in harmony with existence.

I am reminded of Rene Descartesí famous dictum:
ďI think, therefore I am.Ē

Rene Descartes philosophical statement has got this whole world standing on its head. Because this has been incorporated into the education systems, the colleges & universities across the globe. ďI think therefore I am.Ē My God, how absurd!

Certainly, those that identify themselves as intellectuals within the community will be much offended by this statement. (Just watch your egos.)

ďI think, therefore I am.Ē
This ĎIí is nothing but the ego. If you look at this statement, it means that thinking has more of a significance, more of a precedence over one's being. The intellect of the head supersedes, has precedence over, the intelligence of the heart. No wonder there are so many people lost with no direction home.

This Descartes statement translates into much of the psychopathy that is prevalent in the world.
Just consider this: For instance, this statement "I think, therefore I am" means that thinking about love has precedence over actually experiencing love, being in love, or being loved.
Thinking of your loved ones, has precedence over actually being with loved ones.
Thinking about sharing, has precedence over experiencing the actual act of sharing - i.e. being the sharing.
And thinking about God, the divine, has a greater significance than experiencing divinity, and/or experiencing God for oneself.
Thinking about life, has precedence over the actual experience of living life, of existing as an alive being.

What could be more inane than that?
This philosophy, this statement, creates a huge gap between what people actually experience in reality and what people think about what is reality.

What Descartes really means when he uttered this statement, ďI think, therefore I am.Ē He really means to say is: ďI think, therefore the 'I' exists, the ego is.Ē

But in actuality, when ego is, one's true self is not. So, in other words, Descartes is saying, ďI think, therefore, being-ness (am-ness) is not, godliness is not.Ē

This clearly shows Descartes was standing on his head when he made that statement. And, the world is standing on its head for taking that statement running with it - to program all the youth & young minds to believe in its validity through the education systems.

This is because societies can use this upside-down logic to keep its members confused - it makes it easy to exploit you. It does not want people to know that one's being is the essence of oneself, that its higher than one's ability to think.

The statement needs to be corrected:

ďI am, therefore thinking is possible.Ē With this simple rearrangement of the words, Being now has precedence over thinking. If this is taught in the colleges & universities, the world would turn itself around & once again be standing on its feet. It would take some time. But from these roots will grow an infrastructure that is firmly planted in sanity, and a more sane world can be created by this humanity.



turiya :cool:

TruthSeekerNotJudger
9th September 2013, 04:37
There's a Guy Ritchie film called "Revolver" which is all about the ego of man.
It is actually pretty good and has some good insights into ego and self protection of all forms.

music
9th September 2013, 10:27
I would say the ego is one tool among many we have in our toolkit. It is a useful tool, but problems arise because it has the ability to make us forget about the other tools. Having nothing but a hammer is fine when you need a hammer, but not so good when what you really need is a spanner, or a chisel, or a plane, or a level, or even just a touch of sandpaper.

We don't really want to kill the ego, just bring it back into the fold as one amongst equals.

greybeard
9th September 2013, 11:02
I dont want to give the impression that the ego is to be killed.
I was a practising Hynotherapist,NLP, and Psychotherapy practitioner for twenty years so I well know the advantages of "taming" the ego.
However in the state called enlightenment there is no ego.
If one is on the path of enlightenment, which incidentally is not connected with any religion, then the ego is to be transcended.
It serves its purpose in duality but perhaps we are are heading for a time of Non-duality---Unity consciousness--call it what you will.
Its all down to evolution of consciousness.
The body--chakras plays an important part in this--via Kundalini awakening---another long subject.
But the body is modified, through Kundalin awakening, to be home to a higher spiritual vibration.

Chris

AutumnW
9th September 2013, 16:01
Thanks for the response, Dorjezigzag! Haven't read this before. However, I do have a schizophrenic sibling who is in a perpetual state of, for lack of better terms, non-being. There's not a damned thing she can do about it, except take meds. It's not a state to strive for. John Lennon, by what you have posted here chose to temporarily experience this state.


Who said so? It's definitely not a 'state' to resist. That would cause problems.
Actually, resistance is the natural reaction (and the problem) of ego.
It's actually an inevitable state.
Since you aren't in her experience, you might have trouble characterizing it.
That's reasonable.

If you are referring to the state of mental illness, something tells me it is a state to resist. Perhaps I'm wrong, but being hunkered down in a small apartment, frozen with fear, hearing voices and thinking there is a cabal of dark entities that spirit you away every night, is to be avoided. I don't know. I could be wrong. Is this a state of enlightenment that shouldn't be judged, analyzed, questioned or medicated?

The natural state of the ego may be resistance...of all kinds. A healthy ego can help us to resist being drawn down into an a mental abyss. A weak or distorted ego will resist spiritual development and reason. The ego is a tool of persistence, as well. We need to persist to survive.

It is ego or a sense of self, others and the planet around us that helps us form valid judgements about the destruction of our eco-sphere.

Being in a state of ego-less bliss, through meditation, helps to sensitize a person to nature and others. It has no greater value if the individual can't pull out of it and get back into some level of a sense of personal autonomy. Personal autonomy, letting go of a feeling of detached bliss, equals reincorporating ego. Ego equates to action, rather than being frozen in blissfull inaction.

Your last sentence, btw, is an analytical one, a judgement. That's ego. Telling me I am being 'reasonable' in my assessments of my own sister's condition goes beyond judgement and skirts the arena of condescension. That's how it reads. Whether you are in that frame of mind, I don't know. The written word can distort perceptions. I would say, "Know thy self," if that's the case.

AutumnW
9th September 2013, 16:13
I dont want to give the impression that the ego is to be killed.
I was a practising Hynotherapist,NLP, and Psychotherapy practitioner for twenty years so I well know the advantages of "taming" the ego.
However in the state called enlightenment there is no ego.
If one is on the path of enlightenment, which incidentally is not connected with any religion, then the ego is to be transcended.
It serves its purpose in duality but perhaps we are are heading for a time of Non-duality---Unity consciousness--call it what you will.


Its all down to evolution of consciousness.
The body--chakras plays an important part in this--via Kundalini awakening---another long subject.
But the body is modified, through Kundalin awakening, to be home to a higher spiritual vibration.

Chris

Greybeard, Our culture is profoundly propelled by ego, to a very unhealthy degree. I think it's always been that way, starting with the first settlers. So, yes, we have to get our egos under control, in a greater social political sense.

But, here is a poser. If we work on ourselves, have a kundulini awakening, does it put us in a weaker or stronger position to deal with the heads of corporations, political leaders, etc...who are profoundly anti-human, anti-planet and anti-love? What I'm saying and it brings up another paradox...Do we have to be retain enough beligerance and intolerance and judgement in our own natures to deal with the deeply pathological and morally insane people who are running/ruining this world?

AutumnW
9th September 2013, 16:27
Yep Greybeard.. I refer to what some call ego-less as 'being humble.' The humblest people have the healthiest, least fragile egos. It's a matter of definition. Still, bearing that in mind, it is still strange to hear people having contests about who is the most ego-less--even if they mean humble, by my definition.

I would say beware of those that think they are being most "humbleĒ. They are the most dangerous. Their ego is simply standing on its head. Deception is the game. Deceiving others, and especially in deceiving themselves (in the name of piety, in the name of 'moral decency' & in the names of 'niceness' & 'goodness'). The "humblest people" are the most egoistic people there are, imho. :p They are the most dangerous because they are hiding their ego behind a pretense of false virtue. Being 'humble' is an attempt to hide one's ego, especially from oneself.

Certainly there is a place for the ego. And that is in the backseat of a bus.

Ego is a good tool, it can help in the phase of oneís survival life situations. But when one has grown in years & survival has been firmly established in living a life of affluence, when life has moved well beyond a need to survive, then ego needs to be put in its proper place. When it assumes to be king of the castle, when its true purpose is to be a useful servant of the heart, then it needs to be put in its proper place & that is to take a back seat to the situation. When Heart is recognized as master and ego as its servant, then the kingdom of an individual resonates in harmony with existence.

I am reminded of Rene Descartesí famous dictum:
ďI think, therefore I am.Ē

Rene Descartes philosophical statement has got this whole world standing on its head. Because this has been incorporated into the education systems, the colleges & universities across the globe. ďI think therefore I am.Ē My God, how absurd!

Certainly, those that identify themselves as intellectuals within the community will be much offended by this statement. (Just watch your egos.)

ďI think, therefore I am.Ē
This ĎIí is nothing but the ego. If you look at this statement, it means that thinking has more of a significance, more of a precedence over one's being. The intellect of the head supersedes, has precedence over, the intelligence of the heart. No wonder there are so many people lost with no direction home.

This Descartes statement translates into much of the psychopathy that is prevalent in the world.
Just consider this: For instance, this statement "I think, therefore I am" means that thinking about love has precedence over actually experiencing love, being in love, or being loved.
Thinking of your loved ones, has precedence over actually being with loved ones.
Thinking about sharing, has precedence over experiencing the actual act of sharing - i.e. being the sharing.
And thinking about God, the divine, has a greater significance than experiencing divinity, and/or experiencing God for oneself.
Thinking about life, has precedence over the actual experience of living life, of existing as an alive being.

What could be more inane than that?
This philosophy, this statement, creates a huge gap between what people actually experience in reality and what people think about what is reality.

What Descartes really means when he uttered this statement, ďI think, therefore I am.Ē He really means to say is: ďI think, therefore the 'I' exists, the ego is.Ē

But in actuality, when ego is, one's true self is not. So, in other words, Descartes is saying, ďI think, therefore, being-ness (am-ness) is not, godliness is not.Ē

This clearly shows Descartes was standing on his head when he made that statement. And, the world is standing on its head for taking that statement running with it - to program all the youth & young minds to believe in its validity through the education systems.

This is because societies can use this upside-down logic to keep its members confused - it makes it easy to exploit you. It does not want people to know that one's being is the essence of oneself, that its higher than one's ability to think.

The statement needs to be corrected:

ďI am, therefore thinking is possible.Ē With this simple rearrangement of the words, Being now has precedence over thinking. If this is taught in the colleges & universities, the world would turn itself around & once again be standing on its feet. It would take some time. But from these roots will grow an infrastructure that is firmly planted in sanity, and a more sane world can be created by this humanity.



turiya :cool:

Hi Turiya, I think we are making similar points here. I can call you humble and you can call me ego-less or humble (you'd be really wrong, btw!;)) but it's when people start to describe or think of themselves in those term that I have a red flag reaction. I think Greybeard is a genuinely humble guy. I've read enough of what he has written to assure me of that. I don't get the feeling that he thinks of himself in a lofty/humble way. I don't get that sense from hardly anybody on this forum, so far, or I wouldn't be here, because I find it too nauseating.

The, 'I think therefore I am' is confusing, as you describe. I wonder though, if the 'I am' refers to being. 'I think therefore I know I am being?' Maybe Descartes was trying to strip everything down to its most rudimentary form and it was a way of expressing this--'The most fundamental assurance I have that I exist, is that I have thoughts' If I understand what you are saying, your belief is 'I am' precedes thought, not the other way around. Does that make sense or did I miss the point?

greybeard
9th September 2013, 16:30
AutumnW
The Self is not limited by Ego so better results come from action.
The book "Power vs Force" by Dr David Hawkins explains the effects of energy (all levels) very well and simply too.

ďPerhaps the most important and significant book Iíve read in the past ten years.Ē
óDr. Wayne W. Dyer, motivational speaker and prolific best-selling author.

http://veritaspub.com/product_info.php/power-force-the-hidden-determinants-human-behavior-anatomy-consciousness-p-147


Force produces counter force and that way there is little or no change.

Gandhi is a much cited example but non the less he got results through non violence.
A Gandhi quote
"Be the change you want to see"

Chris

greybeard
9th September 2013, 16:36
Rene Descartesí famous dictum:

ďI think, therefore I am.Ē

Eckhart Tolle reckoned Descarte got it wrong and truth is I am therefore I think.

Chris

AutumnW
9th September 2013, 17:00
AutumnW
The Self is not limited by Ego so better results come from action.
The book "Power vs Force" by Dr David Hawkins explains the effects of energy (all levels) very well and simply too.

ďPerhaps the most important and significant book Iíve read in the past ten years.Ē
óDr. Wayne W. Dyer, motivational speaker and prolific best-selling author.

http://veritaspub.com/product_info.php/power-force-the-hidden-determinants-human-behavior-anatomy-consciousness-p-147


Force produces counter force and that way there is little or no change.

Gandhi is a much cited example but non the less he got results through non violence.
A Gandhi quote
"Be the change you want to see"

Chris

Boycotts are a great way of using power rather than force. Agreed.

AutumnW
9th September 2013, 17:36
Hi again Greybeard,

I haven't read Dr. David Hawkins book, so I am writing just based on the synopsis that you linked to. I have a problem with the issue of ascribing a 'negative' or 'positive' value to emotion. Anxiety, fear and a strong aversion to something (hatred), aren't always negative reactions. They shouldn't be indulged or even expressed at all times, but they are there for a reason.

I bet if you strongly challenged David Hawkins on the premise of his book, he'd have some of what he refers to as, negative emotions. Or he would turn it back on you and accuse you of 'being negative' and instantly dismiss you. His philosophy, from what I read in the synopsis, is far too convenient a way to dismiss any sort of criticism.

The reader, who takes it seriously and adopts the teaching to his daily life, may be doing himself and others a disservice, even if his/her motivation is high minded. Rating the truth of another's statements or character, 'instantly', using his numerical scale, is fraught with difficulties and circular logic.

If I provoke anxiety in others by being a complete jerk and they call me on it, I can dismiss them as being negative, because they are in a state of anxiety or anger--according to Hawkins? That theory wouldn't be safe in my hands and I'm not a spiritual, emotional moron. I probably am pretty much representative of the norm.

I find the people who are most obnoxious, are the ones who don't acknowledge that they have a shadow aspect to their nature. The shadow probably performs some kind of role. It certainly shouldn't be indulged. But...it is there to be expressed, when it is absolutely required and only then. Denying the shadow is like giving it fertilizer, it feeds it. Most gurus have huge shadows and distorted, large egos. I don't know about Hawkins, maybe he is the exception. The synopsis of his book raises a red flag though.

greybeard
9th September 2013, 18:04
Hi AutumnW
Dr H is now deceased but he is not a lone voice---Eckhart Tolle says much the same regarding enlightenment in The Power of Now as does Adyashanti.
With respect we will just talk with miss-understanding as the path of enlightenment is a very specific as to what is expected as end result and without some time spent studying this it sounds impossible to believe that such a state exists.
Try this for size---"Only God is and you are That"
People got crucified, burned at the stake, for uttering such a statement.
There is only one Self--there is no individual.
One Consciousness expresses itself through a myriad of forms.
Its discussed in the thread in the spiritual section-- "Enlightenment: The Ego, what is it? How to transcend it."

Now the first time I heard there is only God--- I ran a mile but having read about this for many years its now my understanding that this is true and spoken of for thousands of years in ancient Vedic texts. Jesus said "The father and I are one.--- Of my self I do nothing it is the Father within."
Im not trying to convince, just sharing what I have found---Its on the table, I dont mind if people pick it up or reject it.
Regards Chris

Rich
9th September 2013, 18:36
I think it depends very much on our definition of ego, the way I define it nothing could be experienced without it, there would be no life.

greybeard
9th September 2013, 18:55
I think it depends very much on our definition of ego, the way I define it nothing could be experienced without it, there would be no life.

In a way thats true-- in the current chapter of duality the ego is necessary but I feel we are moving out of that into non-duality.
Some are there already--like Adyashanti to name but one of quite a few.
Plants--trees and some animals currently live without ego.
But it does depend on definition---self worth and genuine pride in work done well is quite separate from ego.
The enlightened enjoy life to the full without the limitations of conditioning, belief systems, concepts etc.
Everything is fresh and new.
Yogananda was asked does not bliss, awareness, self (Sat chit anand) become boring--he said "No its ever new"

Chris

Rich
9th September 2013, 19:24
Well, I would agree to disagree with you my friend. :)
Every POV is correct from the perspective it is seen from, that's why it is
impossible to think illogical, thought is always logical but the info it is based on
is never complete.

Dorjezigzag
9th September 2013, 19:35
Hey Greybeard
One thing I do not agree with is that Adyashanti is enlightened, I know Oprah loves him ;)but there is just something about him

I respect that you do, but here is what I believe to be a very good review of a book of his to express another opinion on him,


This book is my first exposure to Adyashanti, reviewing it as a service to the Amazon.com Vine community. Having a deep knowledge of Zen, Dzogchen, and Advaita from teachers like Ramana Maharshi, Papaji, Sosan, and Norbu, I would have never picked up this book. This book is clearly written for a beginner spiritual audience who wants to talk a lot about enlightenment to judge if they can place the "enlightened" nametag on themselves.

In "The End of Your World" Adyashanti takes the reader on a journey of what happens to a person when they are "enlightened". He tells the audience what to look for and what to expect, relaying his own stories and personal experience. Clearly this type of approach is only reinforcing the identification of a person with events and isolated experiences, effectively moving the reader's consciousness away from any direct experience of Consciousness back into the analytical self-reflecting mind.

If a person were to compare this book with a book by a spiritual teacher such as Ramana Maharshi or Papaji, we would clearly see the difference. While Ramana Maharshi and Papaji take the reader back into the direct experience of Consciousness with every sentence, Adyashanti takes the reader in the opposite direction - further into the egoic mind.

So if you want to call yourself "enlightened" but aren't sure if this new nametag fits, you may want to read this book by Adyasanti. However if you only want deep abiding inner peace and stillness, I recommend reading a teacher like Ramana Maharshi.

To close my review, in the beginning of chapter 2, Adyasanti states that enlightenment does not have an experience of love or bliss. That divine ecstacy is only a salespitch.

Experiencing "enlightenment" without love is only a tiny glimmer of the enlightened state. This "loveless enlightenment" is commonly expressed by teachers when the ego remains and the Spiritual Heart is unawakened.

So when a teacher advertises himself as an Advaita teacher and teaches that bliss is not part of enlightenment, a red flag is raised. To quote the most well-known Advaita teacher of our time, Ramana Maharshi:

"If it is the real bliss of the Self that is experienced, that is, if the mind has really merged in the Self, such a doubt will not arise at all. The question itself shows real bliss was not reached. All doubts will cease only when the doubter and his source have been found. Bliss is a thing which is always there and is not something which comes and goes. That which comes and goes is a creation of the mind and you should not worry about it."

On a similar note, I studied the Zen Buddhist tradition for many years before I first heard a Zen teacher use the term "love" when describing the state of enlightenment. I was shocked when I first heard this word spoken in this context. Zen teachings always appeared dry and devoid of energy.

I was at a Zen retreat when I was honored to meet a 97-year old Zen roshi. Of the handful of reputed spiritual teachers that I have been able to sit with or speak to, this man had the most remarkable stillness. His energy field was completely still, yet radiant - not even a shutter of movement in his energy. To this day, I have never seen another person who was so still within.

As this 97-year old Zen roshi spoke to us, he described the state of enlightenment as the meeting point of Tathaga and Tathagata, that singular moment when perfect stillness is reached as the duality becomes One. He called this state "True Love". This description was shockingly new to me, a radical departure from the ancient words of Zen and Chan teachers. Yet my direct experience of this roshi - his stillness, depth, and radiance - confirmed that he had experienced this state deeper than anyone I had met before (or to this day).

There are a handful of other incomplete understandings that Adyasanti shares in this book. I will not go into these because by now I think any sincere reader can understand the essence of my review of this book.

I have always told others to read only the words spoken directly from the master teachers. Avoid re-interpretations and summaries. If you want enlightenment, find a teacher who will give you the way, not one who will talk about what to look for along it.

When a student gets to a point in his/her spiritual practice, the realization occurs where talking about enlightenment is useless and even ridiculous. Only the direct experience of inner stillness and lucid clarity is the way and the goal, both occuring in this immediate moment.

Words are for the mind. Silence is for the Heart.

Rahkyt
9th September 2013, 20:22
When a student gets to a point in his/her spiritual practice, the realization occurs where talking about enlightenment is useless and even ridiculous. Only the direct experience of inner stillness and lucid clarity is the way and the goal, both occuring in this immediate moment.

Words are for the mind. Silence is for the Heart.

Many "say" this and, every time, for me, it resonates with higher and higher Truth.

turiya
9th September 2013, 20:23
Hi Turiya, I think we are making similar points here. I can call you humble and you can call me ego-less or humble (you'd be really wrong, btw!;)) but it's when people start to describe or think of themselves in those term that I have a red flag reaction. I think Greybeard is a genuinely humble guy. I've read enough of what he has written to assure me of that. I don't get the feeling that he thinks of himself in a lofty/humble way. I don't get that sense from hardly anybody on this forum, so far, or I wouldn't be here, because I find it too nauseating.

The, 'I think therefore I am' is confusing, as you describe. I wonder though, if the 'I am' refers to being. 'I think therefore I know I am being?' Maybe Descartes was trying to strip everything down to its most rudimentary form and it was a way of expressing this--'The most fundamental assurance I have that I exist, is that I have thoughts' If I understand what you are saying, your belief is 'I am' precedes thought, not the other way around. Does that make sense or did I miss the point?

Hi Autumn,
Yes - seems you got it right.

If you consider... when a child is born, he knows nothing of language & thinking thoughts. They are not intrinsic to his nature. Those things come later... as learned behavior. The intellect begins to collect the sounds & meanings after birth (although there is evidence that learning begins within the womb - but it still means the same).

When the dictum is rearranged as to be:

"I am, therefore thinking is possible" With this change the 'I' takes on the meaning of amness, being-ness, i.e. the true self.

As opposed to the way that Descartes lays it out:

"I think, therefore I am" In this case, the 'I' is ego. In other words, thinking is evidence of the ego working. Thinking is also the indication that one's being is not there, as being is covered over by a layer of the intellect. So, when there is thinking, ego is, and being is not. Ego & Being cannot exist within the same moment together. It is an either / or scenario.

To put into the form of the Descartes dictum:
"I think, therefore being is not." Now, I know I probably got you really confused. ;)

Just understand that the intellect & intelligence are not the same. In fact, they are diametrically opposite to each other. Intellect is formed by collecting information from the outside world. Intelligence wells up from within, from the source of one's being.

This can cause a confusion if one clings to the borrowed knowledge that is accumulated within the intellect which is needed to substantiate the ego's existence. But really, something like the ego doesn't actually exist, its only the accumulated information (borrowed knowledge) held within memory that makes it appear that there is something like an ego. When one becomes strongly attached to, or identified with, that borrowed information, then one is willing to defend it, sometimes willing to kill another to defend it.

I have made an explanation of this in another post on a different thread. (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?62715-Religious-Texts-and-Genetic-Death&p=723750#post723750)

If the accumulated information that is held within the intellect is dropped, as in 'laying the mind aside' (as in meditation), the ego will not be there as the thin veil that covers over one's essential being. If one is able to experience this (to have the actual experience of meditation), then, as it has been often said, one realizes truth, God, moksha, etc. People have called it many different terms. a Japanese term that often been used is 'satori'. Satori literally translates into "a taste of enlightenment".

To describe the awesomeness of this experience with words is not possible. That is why I have often said over my last several posts: "All words are lies!" Lao Tzu has also said this (of course, using different words) at the beginning of writing his book Tao Te Ching:

The Tao that can be told of is not the absolute Tao -- Lao Tzu



Hope this helps.

turiya :cool:

greybeard
9th September 2013, 20:24
Obviously I cant definitely state either way on Adyashanti but we are agreed on Ramana.
Nasargadatta is another, the book "I am That" is a land mark.

Adyashanti description of his two stages of enlightenment ring true for me but of course that's an opinion.
Both Eckhart Tolle and Dr Hawkins could not function fully in society for years due to the profound peace and in Hawkins case states of ecstasy/bliss.
Hawkins said even those had to be surrendered. He also maintained that there are different levels of enlightenment and that enlightenment could be seen as kindergarten.
There may be differences but there is a common thread running through. No me remains-- the ego being identification with the story of "myself"--that goes. They all say its beyond the intellect, the mind cant get it--it cant be spoken of, for then its just another concept.
Ramana said--- use a thorn to remove a thorn then throw both away (the mind)
He also said "Creation and dissolution never happened"
All well beyond the average human experience, yet its what we are.

Chris

Ultima Thule
11th September 2013, 04:35
From my point of view it goes like this:

Ego: your bodily senses, instincts, urges and emotions. Very much a cascade of hormonal functions. Basically wolf pack like hierarchical behaviour. Completely necessary and to the point, a young man in fertile age as an example should be "pruning his fur" (hair-do, bulk up, nice car with loud stereos) to get attention.

In my opinion there is absolutely no reason to crush ego or get rid of it. Lord of the Rings analogy would be Denethor - ie the steward.

Soul
This is what distinguishes humans from many animals imho. Animals I suppose may have group souls or something akin to soul, however I see an animal doing just right as it travels through its life in the control of its ego, ie instincts.

We humans however are in my opinion balanced differently, the emphasis not on what instincts, hormones etc would have us do, but to chooce from a higher place whether we follow the urge or decide on a different set of actions.
For a time in our lives, the youth I would say we should be governed by our ego and be in lesser amount given hints from our soul - bulk up, make impression, but realize somehow that it is that blue eyed girl that really would carry a significance. Later, propably around the time of parenthood I would say the scale should tip - soul stepping to the front, ego and instincts warning you of those dudes in the back ally.
Lord of the Rings analogy of soul would be Aragorn, the return of the king.

In a nutshell we 100% need ego and soul, they just need to be in right proportions.
Ego can and should mostly govern in youth, soul in background. Ego trying to govern later in life is akin to a dog taking over the control of his human pack - chaos ensues. Soul should slowly step to front and ego step back. Donīt get me wrong when I say pack-like behaviour - it is not at all primitive, but may be uncredibly intelligent and calculative and polite behaviour that aims to lift oneself up in the hierarchy via making others feel worse than you.

If it doesn't happen, ego(pack like behaviour) will try to do the work of god in us - which is what imo soul is here to do as a representative of god in us - and fail miserably. Just as well as soul governing young people will - again imo - in spiritual practices for children in many cases do more harm than good - bodily life should be lived as well as spiritual life - for we are both.

UT

greybeard
11th September 2013, 09:11
I think it is important to differentiate medical/psychiatric from spiritual.
Wayne Dyer said "EGO stands for Edge God Out."
If the priority is to make spiritual progress, then every spiritual teacher, apart from some new age ones, say the ego must first be tamed then transcended.
Its wise to realise that the "powers that be" play on the human ego by creating fear and also promising a better tomorrow if we do what we are told.
Its very subtle but right from birth we are programmed or rather the ego is.

The Self as defined in spiritual text cant be programmed or feel fear driven negative emotions though it is aware of these.
The Self is what we truly are.

Now from a medical point of view a healthy ego is a good thing.
I prefer healthy self image as a definition and that is a good thing.
We are spirit having a human experience so it all appears very real in order for it to be a valid event.
However it is good not to loose sight of the fact that in essence we are spirit.
Jesus said " Wear the world like a loose garment" that's good advice but not that easy to follow.
We can get pulled this way and that by pain and pleasure, we rarely enjoy just this moment, the ego lives in past and future.

Chris

Dorjezigzag
11th September 2013, 13:15
I think it is important to differentiate medical/psychiatric from spiritual.

You sound like Freud there

Another example of the mind body split

There we go sperating things, the western approach of fragmenting everything into seperate little boxes which is why many westerners cannot get a grip around Eastern thought.

I suggest you study the extensive and excellent works of Karl Jung who beautifully brings together psychology and Spirit


Wayne Dyer said "EGO stands for Edge God Out."

Surprise, surprise another pithy sound bite from Wayne Dyer, I wonder how many more books he sold with that. In my opinion Wayne Dyer has a lot of work to do on his Ego.


every spiritual teacher, apart from some new age ones

I never have been very keen on the term 'New Age' of course the term does have some astrological accuracy as we are moving, around this period, from the age of Pisces into the age of Aquarius. Graham Hancock has presented a lot of compelling evidence for the historical importance placed on travelling through ages. So in essence any teacher existing today is part of a new Age that is happening, whether you believe this has any bearing is probably based on your knowledge of astrology.

To be called New Age was once a compliment, now it seems to have become a derogatory term, akin to flacky and unscientific, used as an insult something like a hippy. It is interesting how language does get subverted and and a agenda is implanted into it. For instance the word sophism( related to sophia, goddess) originated from Greek σόφισμα, sophisma, from σοφίζω, sophizo "I am wise"; confer σοφιστής, sophistēs, meaning "wise-ist, one who does wisdom," and σοφός, sophůs means "wise man. Now it is used as an insult and its meaning has been subverted and interestingly it was once used against me, meaning a specious argument used for deceiving someone.

Isn't it interesting that many words with feminine wisdom associations such as wierd, witch and sophism had the meanings subverted. But hardly surprising in the patriarchy that we have been living under and through which people are conditioned

Fewer and fewer bookshops now have a new age section, but when they did most of the notaries you are constantly promoting such as Adyashanti, Eckhart Tolle, Wayne Dyer and Dr Hawkins would be in that section as are often Hindu and buddhist texts

You said earlier that a tree does not have an ego it does, for instance an Oak tree, has an identity (an I, an Ego) of being an Oak tree, we would be very surprised if it grew as a cabbage, but if it did become a cabbage we could perhaps say that it was not being its true self, it would then perhaps feel very self important because it was a special oak tree that grows as a cabbage, then it would have self importance.

I suggest why the term that represents the I, the ego has become derogatory is because those that like to have control do not want you find your inner identity, they want you to destroy that so they can impose their identity on you. Then they are in control of you, not you. You are not living your destiny, you are living theres

I would suggest a more accurate word for programing that takes us away from ourselves is not (ego) which means I, it should be the Not I.

We need to identify the not I, work through it, but too much focussing on the not I would just give to much energy to it and probably make it bigger rather than smaller.

The greater work should be in indetifying the true I, the true EGO, the essence.

We should focus on the true I, the essence and only the I (inner eye) can really find that.

markpierre
16th September 2013, 12:26
Thanks for the response, Dorjezigzag! Haven't read this before. However, I do have a schizophrenic sibling who is in a perpetual state of, for lack of better terms, non-being. There's not a damned thing she can do about it, except take meds. It's not a state to strive for. John Lennon, by what you have posted here chose to temporarily experience this state.


Who said so? It's definitely not a 'state' to resist. That would cause problems.
Actually, resistance is the natural reaction (and the problem) of ego.
It's actually an inevitable state.
Since you aren't in her experience, you might have trouble characterizing it.
That's reasonable.

If you are referring to the state of mental illness, something tells me it is a state to resist. Perhaps I'm wrong, but being hunkered down in a small apartment, frozen with fear, hearing voices and thinking there is a cabal of dark entities that spirit you away every night, is to be avoided. I don't know. I could be wrong. Is this a state of enlightenment that shouldn't be judged, analyzed, questioned or medicated?

The natural state of the ego may be resistance...of all kinds. A healthy ego can help us to resist being drawn down into an a mental abyss. A weak or distorted ego will resist spiritual development and reason. The ego is a tool of persistence, as well. We need to persist to survive.

It is ego or a sense of self, others and the planet around us that helps us form valid judgements about the destruction of our eco-sphere.

Being in a state of ego-less bliss, through meditation, helps to sensitize a person to nature and others. It has no greater value if the individual can't pull out of it and get back into some level of a sense of personal autonomy. Personal autonomy, letting go of a feeling of detached bliss, equals reincorporating ego. Ego equates to action, rather than being frozen in blissfull inaction.

Your last sentence, btw, is an analytical one, a judgement. That's ego. Telling me I am being 'reasonable' in my assessments of my own sister's condition goes beyond judgement and skirts the arena of condescension. That's how it reads. Whether you are in that frame of mind, I don't know. The written word can distort perceptions. I would say, "Know thy self," if that's the case.


You called it mental illness. Probably everybody else too, and she's stuck with their evaluation which is 'hunker down in fear'. That's what judgement does to you. Ourselves and others.
Having good and bad is judgement. Believing that is a mistake.
There's nowhere else that she feels allowed to be having those experiences? I wonder why that is.
Just trust me that I know about conditions that are too private and too devastating to be expressible.
It just is what it is. My mind works differently too. Big deal. None of that stuff is mysterious after the fact.

Personal autonomy is what separation is. Firstly, there is no such thing except in the effort to prove separate things are not a single unified experience, and that we're at the whim and mercy of every separate thing around us. That takes a lot of energy and effort. It also excludes love.
And secondly, because it's impossible to do. Some parts of itself are good and some parts of itself are bad. That IS an uncomfortable condition. We tend to mistake it for reality.
'Come back to reality...where things are really f'd up', But we do it because we don't know anything else.
Hard to say where the pathology is. 'Everyone else' is also just a voice in your head.

It's reasonable that you wouldn't have a clue of what her real experience is. It's not possible to comprehend. Allow her to have it and love her for her courage. And since there's nothing you can do. Whatever it's purpose is disguised as a problem.

I prefer direct to condescending. I really couldn't be bothered. I'm sure it could be heard that way, because anything can. So don't you bother either, and then we'll be friends.
I don't post just to entertain myself very often, though I do love irony.

GloriousPoetry
16th September 2013, 19:42
Sometimes I believe it's healthy to have an ego especially as a woman.......I demand to be treated with dignity and high respect.... and sometimes I want to eat the chocolate cake even though I know it's bad for me! LOL !

sheme
16th September 2013, 21:48
My thoughts on ego.

Whilst experiencing life on Earth in a human body ego is necessary to protect the souls means of experiencing life on Earth- without it the body is a group of cells with no particular urge to feed drink communicate think or procreate.

We have been bestowed with ego- therefore ego is necessary. Ego is not something to be snuffed out whilst we dwell in this vibration, crush your ego and you will have to rely on someone elses ego to sustain your body or die.

But sometimes due to our experiences it just gets out of proportion sometimes too small, sometimes too big.

Abnormal ego maybe necessary for us to fullfill our lifes purpose?

Either way we are where we should be.

mahalall
16th September 2013, 22:50
Enquiring about Moving beyond self, the thought arises-that by meditating within one self is one unwittingly reconfirming a sense of self, and that perhaps to truely go beyond self might we have to dissolve-unify with the external.

big hugs to all

AutumnW
16th September 2013, 23:36
You called it mental illness. Probably everybody else too, and she's stuck with their evaluation which is 'hunker down in fear'. That's what judgement does to you. Ourselves and others.
Having good and bad is judgement. Believing that is a mistake.
There's nowhere else that she feels allowed to be having those experiences? I wonder why that is.
Just trust me that I know about conditions that are too private and too devastating to be expressible.
It just is what it is. My mind works differently too. Big deal. None of that stuff is mysterious after the fact.

Personal autonomy is what separation is. Firstly, there is no such thing except in the effort to prove separate things are not a single unified experience, and that we're at the whim and mercy of every separate thing around us. That takes a lot of energy and effort. It also excludes love.
And secondly, because it's impossible to do. Some parts of itself are good and some parts of itself are bad. That IS an uncomfortable condition. We tend to mistake it for reality.
'Come back to reality...where things are really f'd up', But we do it because we don't know anything else.
Hard to say where the pathology is. 'Everyone else' is also just a voice in your head.

It's reasonable that you wouldn't have a clue of what her real experience is. It's not possible to comprehend. Allow her to have it and love her for her courage. And since there's nothing you can do. Whatever it's purpose is disguised as a problem.

I prefer direct to condescending. I really couldn't be bothered. I'm sure it could be heard that way, because anything can. So don't you bother either, and then we'll be friends.
I don't post just to entertain myself very often, though I do love irony.

And where is the irony here, Mark Pierre? And yes, I call chronic schizophrenia, mental illness, not a state of enlightenment. Unless you have suffered from such a devastating disease, or tried to help someone with a dark night of the soul--- that never ends, you have no right to pass judgement. And 'love my sister anyway?' Are you out of your mind? Of course her family loves her. Not letting her die of starvation, unmedicated and scared, is not akin to letting an eccentric or spiritual family member, 'follow their bliss.'

Your post reeks of covert aggression. You have heaped judgement and criticism on me and that comes from a sense of being offended which is an ego related function. Suggesting I don't condescend to you, either, when I didn't in the first place, so that we, 'can be friends' after you tread on some very delicate ground, in your initial response, is a bit much.

AutumnW
16th September 2013, 23:47
Enquiring about Moving beyond self, the thought arises-that by meditating within one self is one unwittingly reconfirming a sense of self, and that perhaps to truely go beyond self might we have to dissolve-unify with the external.

big hugs to all

This is probably the desired goal of meditation. Do you think that if you were in this state, all of the time, that you would be able to comprehend the specific suffering of another--I'm talking specifics here, not universals. In order to really behold another, to see them, requires an analytical function--a self to other self mode of being. To be able to quiet the mind, as much as possible for a certain amount of time every day, probably provides the needed rest for it to function well and to be able to love more fully, though. What do you think?

AutumnW
16th September 2013, 23:52
My thoughts on ego.

Whilst experiencing life on Earth in a human body ego is necessary to protect the souls means of experiencing life on Earth- without it the body is a group of cells with no particular urge to feed drink communicate think or procreate.

We have been bestowed with ego- therefore ego is necessary. Ego is not something to be snuffed out whilst we dwell in this vibration, crush your ego and you will have to rely on someone elses ego to sustain your body or die.

But sometimes due to our experiences it just gets out of proportion sometimes too small, sometimes too big.

Abnormal ego maybe necessary for us to fullfill our lifes purpose?

Either way we are where we should be.

Yes, that's good point. Steve Jobs was and Bill Gates and others are ego-driven and the end result is you and I can communicate over vast distances. So it's not always all bad.

AutumnW
16th September 2013, 23:57
Sometimes I believe it's healthy to have an ego especially as a woman.......I demand to be treated with dignity and high respect.... and sometimes I want to eat the chocolate cake even though I know it's bad for me! LOL !

Eating chocolate cake isn't about ego, it's about being in love! (with the cake) ;)

AutumnW
17th September 2013, 00:01
I think it is important to differentiate medical/psychiatric from spiritual.


I suggest why the term that represents the I, the ego has become derogatory is because those that like to have control do not want you find your inner identity they want you to destroy that so they can impose their identity on you. Then they are in control of you, not you. You are not living your destiny, you are living theres

I would suggest a more accurate word for programing that takes us away from ourselves is not (ego) which means I, it should be the Not I.

We need to identify the not I work through it, but too much focussing on the not I would just give to much energy to it and probably make it bigger rather than smaller.

The greater work should be in indetifying the true I, the true EGO, the essence.

We should focus on the true I, the essence and only the I can really find that.

Hi Dorjez, Hope you don't mind I contracted your name! You've made some good points here. Could you give examples that illustrate where and when this has happened. I think I know what you mean, but am unclear.

AutumnW
17th September 2013, 00:16
I think it is important to differentiate medical/psychiatric from spiritual.
Wayne Dyer said "EGO stands for Edge God Out."
If the priority is to make spiritual progress, then every spiritual teacher, apart from some new age ones, say the ego must first be tamed then transcended.
Its wise to realise that the "powers that be" play on the human ego by creating fear and also promising a better tomorrow if we do what we are told.
Its very subtle but right from birth we are programmed or rather the ego is.

The Self as defined in spiritual text cant be programmed or feel fear driven negative emotions though it is aware of these.
The Self is what we truly are.

Now from a medical point of view a healthy ego is a good thing.
I prefer healthy self image as a definition and that is a good thing.
We are spirit having a human experience so it all appears very real in order for it to be a valid event.
However it is good not to loose sight of the fact that in essence we are spirit.
Jesus said " Wear the world like a loose garment" that's good advice but not that easy to follow.
We can get pulled this way and that by pain and pleasure, we rarely enjoy just this moment, the ego lives in past and future.

Chris

Hi Chris, I think the powers that be can play on any emotion, aspect or facet of the human mind and experience. When you remark here that the ego is controlled by fear from the time we are young I am thinking of how peer pressure, or fear of 'not belonging' is used to sell all sorts of products, for example. Fear of embarrassment, humiliation, ostracism, is a powerful force. But do you think that those who feel they have transcended ego aren't also sensitive to this feature of social living? And do you think the ptb are exclusively responsible, or is some of that innate to our natures as social beings. I mean, being humiliated is the red letter that marks you and being tossed out of the tribe to fend for yourself is the next step. I am thinking of someone being embarrassed because they have been accused of not transcending their ego. (Think EST)

It all gets very convoluted. I feel fear, anxiety, anger and humiliation and all sorts of negative emotions. I feel all of them represent aspects of who I truly am, my true self. It would be a tough job to deny all of this in my nature in order to embrace my 'self'.

Wind
17th September 2013, 00:30
WUXodFgbDfQ

markpierre
17th September 2013, 03:50
You called it mental illness. Probably everybody else too, and she's stuck with their evaluation which is 'hunker down in fear'. That's what judgement does to you. Ourselves and others.
Having good and bad is judgement. Believing that is a mistake.
There's nowhere else that she feels allowed to be having those experiences? I wonder why that is.
Just trust me that I know about conditions that are too private and too devastating to be expressible.
It just is what it is. My mind works differently too. Big deal. None of that stuff is mysterious after the fact.

Personal autonomy is what separation is. Firstly, there is no such thing except in the effort to prove separate things are not a single unified experience, and that we're at the whim and mercy of every separate thing around us. That takes a lot of energy and effort. It also excludes love.
And secondly, because it's impossible to do. Some parts of itself are good and some parts of itself are bad. That IS an uncomfortable condition. We tend to mistake it for reality.
'Come back to reality...where things are really f'd up', But we do it because we don't know anything else.
Hard to say where the pathology is. 'Everyone else' is also just a voice in your head.

It's reasonable that you wouldn't have a clue of what her real experience is. It's not possible to comprehend. Allow her to have it and love her for her courage. And since there's nothing you can do. Whatever it's purpose is disguised as a problem.

I prefer direct to condescending. I really couldn't be bothered. I'm sure it could be heard that way, because anything can. So don't you bother either, and then we'll be friends.
I don't post just to entertain myself very often, though I do love irony.

And where is the irony here, Mark Pierre? And yes, I call chronic schizophrenia, mental illness, not a state of enlightenment. Unless you have suffered from such a devastating disease, or tried to help someone with a dark night of the soul--- that never ends, you have no right to pass judgement. And 'love my sister anyway?' Are you out of your mind? Of course her family loves her. Not letting her die of starvation, unmedicated and scared, is not akin to letting an eccentric or spiritual family member, 'follow their bliss.'

Your post reeks of covert aggression. You have heaped judgement and criticism on me and that comes from a sense of being offended which is an ego related function. Suggesting I don't condescend to you, either, when I didn't in the first place, so that we, 'can be friends' after you tread on some very delicate ground, in your initial response, is a bit much.

There's no argument. Stop interpreting one. There may be some irony in 'who' is considering the topic.

AutumnW
17th September 2013, 12:54
What do you mean by your statement that there 'may' be something ironic about who posed the question. And you can bet you are going to get push back when you stubbornly persist describing a severe mental illness along purely metaphysical lines. Perhaps that interpretation jibes with your own experiences-- but it isn't useful to my sister's situation. Btw, when we last talked she described her life post hospital and on meds as a 'ressurection'

Do I think there is a spiritual aspect to all of this? Oh yeah--and you know what it might be? Not throwing your hands up in the air and walking away because it is so difficult to deal with, not just for her but for those who care about her.

She hasn't transcended ego. She doesn't have an intact one. She is a perfect example of why an intact ego is important.

mahalall
17th September 2013, 13:14
This is probably the desired goal of meditation. Do you think that if you were in this state, all of the time, that you would be able to comprehend the specific suffering of another--I'm talking specifics here, not universals. In order to really behold another, to see them, requires an analytical function--a self to other self mode of being. To be able to quiet the mind, as much as possible for a certain amount of time every day, probably provides the needed rest for it to function well and to be able to love more fully, though. What do you think?' AutumnW
Is the only analytical function required in the movement from self into the expansion of empathy is be present that, the presence is empathetic.

markpierre
17th September 2013, 16:02
What do you mean by your statement that there 'may' be something ironic about who posed the question. And you can bet you are going to get push back when you stubbornly persist describing a severe mental illness along purely metaphysical lines. Perhaps that interpretation jibes with your own experiences-- but it isn't useful to my sister's situation. Btw, when we last talked she described her life post hospital and on meds as a 'ressurection'

Do I think there is a spiritual aspect to all of this? Oh yeah--and you know what it might be? Not throwing your hands up in the air and walking away because it is so difficult to deal with, not just for her but for those who care about her.

She hasn't transcended ego. She doesn't have an intact one. She is a perfect example of why an intact ego is important.

Iím sorry our exchange took a contentious turn. I havenít joined in that except in bluntness, and though bluntness isnít a crime, it can be a catalyst. I recognize my responsibility for it. My apologies if you felt offended. You misunderstood me because I wasnít clear enough. Bluntness can also be cryptic, which is something I donít appreciate. It reminds me of Ďsecretsí and gives me an image of a crypt. I try to be very careful. We forget pretty easily that weíre not talking to each other as much as weíre talking to the world. Things we say ring bells in minds that were directed to hear that phrase at that moment to ring that bell. Thatís how it works. Thatís the value of a forum. Thatís a big responsibility. Whatever else is happening is just entirely between us and ourselves. This is just a computer screen in fact, if weíre being present and observing our reactions. Disagreements and arguments are self indulgence. The objective is to add to, not demolish and replace.

I know very very well of conditions that are oppressive, and even terrifying. Lifelong inescapable conditions. Death can seem more desirable, if dead meant truly dead. It doesnít. It means youíve altered the conditions. That purpose and the task remain, if the attempt to fulfil them has been aborted.

Every single living soul is growing from within a set of chosen conditions. I very much understand and empathize with your sibling because my tasks have been extreme as well. You have for yourself the condition of having lived with it, which is another aspect. Itís not understandable, and thatís a very impacting thing. Very hard. Youíre feeling of it is not excluded from your perception of it. Youíve suffered. Perception is entirely subjective, and entirely ruled by the ego. Ego is not a bad thing. Only in how comfortable you are in its interpretation of your experience. Because its job is your safety, but only your perceived safety. It isnít a true interpretation, and weíre not obliged to abide by it. Ego was the topic. Ego is nearly entirely your experience of yourself as an identity. Everything you think about yourself as true. Autonomy is an example. More to the point your relative comfort and discomfort. And even more to the point, the levels of fear. The dialogues going on in our minds in regard to ourselves, no matter how dark or agreeable, are entirely false. It's based on a false premise. That your thoughts have meaning. The way we regard our thoughts is dysfunctional. They get stuck to us and we believe them.
Ego is a bad thing only in the way people misuse and misinterpret the word, and then agree on those misuses. Ego loses its pathological control when it no longer has a pathological purpose. Itís still going to suggest you move when a tree is falling on you.

I canít describe a true dark night of the soul to you, because youíll have to feel it. There is no you. Thatís a sense, as much as the sense you have that there is a you, and just as vivid, and has degrees of intensity. There is no void of awareness.
There is no end to it possible when you're in it. No past, no future that can offer a solution. There isnít just Ďno youí that you can identify, there is nothing anywhere that you can identify. Strangely thatís really the fact of the matter in perception.
Itís completely void of the only thing that fills the universe., because youíre trapped in perception. Only perception can conceive Ďnothing.í And you recognize that, and that the only thing that youíd ever identified with was clearly all illusions. All contrived.
Illusions wonít relieve you. It is your most honest core. No denial.

As mystical experiences go, itís a big one. Crucial and inevitable and also leaving you with the possibility of recognizing and experiencing that no matter how hard or impossible it is, you pass through it. You canít be annihilated, and you canít be fooled that there is a self identity that isnít an invention. That would include all of your opinions and beliefs. That, among other surprises, is one of the values of it.
It's not something to avoid.

In your family you have varying levels of difficulty within a particular condition that includes everyone involved. Tragedy forces changes. A lot of individual and collective work being done. Thatís all happening in the realm of what is 'not' ego. Itís not visible to perception, unless you change the way you perceive. You donít even need to, it changes with you. Weíre not here to sort out good experiences from bad. Weíre here to meet them all. Eventually with love and acceptance. Selfless. Thatís a feeling. An experience. Not an idea or an ideal. Itís not a behavior, itís a way of being. It's a state of mind. Behavior follows.
The surprise is that Ďselflessí is the same Ďno youí, just not in perception. No grasping for identity and autonomy.

I canít really imagine an alternative to whatís obvious. People who live in tough conditions have taken on a tougher task than others. Their soulís agenda is one that requires it. They must be capable of it. It might not be heroic, it might be overzealous.
But important and purposeful.
The big picture is actually very dispassionate, because what we call Ďheartí is what everything is made of. When we come into our hearts weíre only agreeing with what already is. Including the mandate that we sometimes meet our greatest dreads and fears however they present themselves, until we refuse to turn from them. Seemingly having no choice is a trick, and a good one. ĎI accept these conditionsí might take a moment, but is a lot more determined than allowing for choices. How able is the ego at making the best choices for your soulís agenda? Not very. Not at all. It has no idea of that agenda. That agenda will one day undo that identity thatís made up of beliefs and judgements. That is in no way anyone's egoís agenda.

Sometimes it seems like choice has been taken away, but it wasnít. It is the ultimate opportunity to make a leap. You see the whole world being compelled now to make definitive choices. There is nowhere left to run to. No half measures left that havenít failed. Weíve all often not made the right choice. We donít until we do. We donít often consciously make it, it just becomes our time. Thatís not an end to work that is done here, if work was a choice that was made. That work can seem infinitely more unpleasant than before you became aware of the difference between the reality that you perceive, and the one thatís really there. It wonít change for your preferences sake, it changes as it guides you. You put it there, as it is, for a reason. It may even become more confronting. How you experience it changes. Thatís the difference for you. A mind that has been freed isnít paralyzed by confrontation.

I really donít have any ideas or suggestions to make on Ďmental illnessí because it is whatever you say it is, to you. I regard it as a mission, and I admire those people. I donít know where the suggestion came from that itís anything to do with enlightenment, but it is a part of a journey there. The same as any other condition. It could be entirely personal, or entirely for the whole. And I canít know how you define enlightenment for yourself, but I donít define it. If I had to illustrate it, from experience it would be; one moment you recognize that the moment before that, you saw and knew nothing. It could startle you for a time, but itís not a shock to remember yourSelf. Youíve never not been that. But relief can sometimes be a little overwhelming, because itís so alien to us. You can call that bliss I guess. Itís blissful. For most people bliss is an imagined thing. It isnít that. Itís entirely different. Simple freedom from the little worried self. But the mind that looks for bliss, is the same mind that looks for escape from what itís rejecting, which is what it believes about itself. What it believes about the world.

Some people might think enlightened just means you donít trust the government or the doctor or the aliens. Thatís not wrong, but itís pretty small. I would say that you donít trust perception, or the thoughts that interpret it for you. You have no need to and so you donít. But you do trust yourself because youíve become trustworthy. God canít be absent in any condition. It canít be absent in your sister. Look for it in her, and help her see it. That will help you see it. Thatís not throwing your hands up or floating over the top of it. Itís going deeper. Situations that we canít escape from, are doing the most work for us.

Kindest regards

AutumnW
17th September 2013, 17:18
Hi Mark Pierre,

I'll respond more at length after I have time to read through what you have written carefully. I'll also follow up with info in a pm to you that will provide proper context. I have a feeling we are actually more on the same page here than is apparent. Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts and I apologize, too, for rubbing you the wrong way. I can be a lousy online masseuse!

markpierre
18th September 2013, 01:08
Hi Mark Pierre,

I'll respond more at length after I have time to read through what you have written carefully. I'll also follow up with info in a pm to you that will provide proper context. I have a feeling we are actually more on the same page here than is apparent. Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts and I apologize, too, for rubbing you the wrong way. I can be a lousy online masseuse!

We're on the same page. This venue is limited, that's all. I never felt rubbed the wrong way. I felt rubbed into correcting what I felt was my responsibility. I'd look forward to hearing from you, but don't feel compelled.

turiya
23rd September 2013, 00:22
DjSadhu - the Collapse (music video)


Fed up with the System, the Banksters, the Media, the Army, or your Ego? Let me collapse that for you in a meditative non-violent way, and give it back to nature.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1LDVcIpwwA

turiya :cool:

amor
29th September 2016, 23:19
Words express separation of and in the Divine Mind. Joy, Love, Peace express the unity which is the Bliss of Eternal Life.

Yetti
30th September 2016, 00:27
Hey greybeard.. As soon i saw the title , i remember a joke from the past,: Do you know what's ego? ,, is the little argentinian we all carry inside !

ZooLife
1st October 2016, 01:14
Absence of ego, one will never find absolute proof of it in the material world.

There maybe a resemblance of it but a resemblance is not it.

A reflection is a reflection is a reflection is a.......

An ego is an ego is an ego is an......

Ego is never not an ego no matter how hard it pretends to NOT be an ego.

Ego is all about pretension.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLRjFWDGs1g

The pretension is so great that few, if any, know its full scope.

https://inst.eecs.berkeley.edu/~cs61a/fa14/proj/scheme_gallery/29.png