Ego?

[arjuna]

After watching a few videos of Leo and reading a little here in the forum, it seems to me, that the narrative here is, that the "ego" is something to "overcome".

Is this observation of mine right?

if yes,  why?

Where do you see the functionality of "ego"? why is it something to overcome?

[eskwire]

Yes and no.

You distance from it and can eventually "overcome" it by seeing it as an illusion, so to speak. You do not overcome it. It does not exist. Yet it does, because it has an effect. Much like a dream "exists" - if it didn't exist, why did you have night sweats over it and bore your friends recounting it? But it didn't exist. Or did it? Just kidding. 

It is something to watch because, if it is not watched with awareness, it consumes the mind. The mind thinks it is real. And important. And right. And actions stemming from such a place are generally not what we uphold as our highest ideals.

Simply observe what is felt when you observe egotistical behavior in others. 

The ego does not necessarily have a function, though many argue that it is required for productivity. This is a trick of the ego to preserve itself, of course, but try telling that to an ego. 

[Shin]

Don't even call it "ego", because that would imply it is an independant entity, and it gives it an identity (to fight like you said).

There is no "ego" that dominate your life, It's just thoughts/beliefs patterns.
The mind blame/criticize everything that contratict these thoughts/beliefs, in order to make sense.

This is why there is always "something wrong", or "something that you must get".
It's an infinite loop, a battle no one can win.

It feels like an ennemy because it does everything it can to preserve itself, but when you look at it more closely, it's just a broken inconscious system that tries to make it work, tries.
It's nothing but fears, and weaknesses, of course it doesn't want to look and fix itself, that would require to suffer, even more.

It's just inconsciousness, there is nothing wrong in itself, we just need to transcend it, which means not identify with the thoughts/beliefs, but rather try to understand where they come from.
With understanding, it starts to loose its momentum, and at some point it doesn't hold you anymore.
You'll see the beliefs coming before you say anything, and most of the time you won't say anything or you would say you don't know what is your position (you'll be neutral).
 

Edited May 14, 2017 by Shin

[arjuna]

Thanks for the replies. I come from another school of thought, so to say, even if it is not a "school of thought".

35 minutes ago, eskwire said:

Yes and no.

You distance from it and can eventually "overcome" it by seeing it as an illusion, so to speak. You do not overcome it. It does not exist. Yet it does, because it has an effect. Much like a dream "exists" - if it didn't exist, why did you have night sweats over it and bore your friends recounting it? But it didn't exist. Or did it? Just kidding. 

It is something to watch because, if it is not watched with awareness, it consumes the mind. The mind thinks it is real. And important. And right. And actions stemming from such a place are generally not what we uphold as our highest ideals.

Simply observe what is felt when you observe egotistical behavior in others. 

The ego does not necessarily have a function, though many argue that it is required for productivity. This is a trick of the ego to preserve itself, of course, but try telling that to an ego. 

I think that the word ego is just a construct, a paradigm so to say. i agree, that when "you experience" ultimate reality or brahman, the ego is not present. it cannot be present otherwise it would interpret and it is not interpretable. i think we differ from the conclusion out of it. 

not in brahman, there is a feeling of  selfness. this observes/constructs "reality" and interprets it, giving a feeling of identity "in the world". now why is that? i think that this self or ego or "I" has a purpose. i think it is real in the same sense "the world" is real to us. not in the sense of brahman whick is ultimate. still i find it to be a kind of vague denial of reality, if we rip the self/ego/I of any meaning of existence. it's paradoxical to say, it has no existence, yet it exists. the mind is not able to comprehend brahman/ultimate reality, so duality in that sense is a construct in itself. now, i am not in brahman, therefore it is so, that the I exists. Denial of it, leads to a paradox/dual/illusionary state of mind.

I embrace and accept the "ego" out of these reasons. The mind constructs this world, causality and life for a purpose and to overcome it, as soon we entered it, is possibly not necessary. Why not play with it, why not use it and make the world a richer place? 

identifying with it, i agree on that, could lead to delusion of grandeur and can cause suffering in the world. But making it to a boogeyman i find is just the same projected superstition like the devil in christianity. just on another level. I think, brahman is where we came from and this "world" is the next level, not brahman. the baby is born from the womb of the mother. does it crawl in it again? no. 

27 minutes ago, Shin said:

Don't even call it "ego", because that would imply it is an independant entity, and it gives it an identity (to fight like you said).

There is no "ego" that dominate your life, It's just thoughts/beliefs patterns.
The mind blame/criticize everything that contratict these thoughts/beliefs, in order to make sense.

This is why there is always "something wrong", or "something that you must get".
It's an infinite loop, a battle no one can win.

It feels like an ennemy because it does everything it can to preserve itself, but when you look at it more closely, it's just a broken inconscious system that tries to make it work, tries.
It's nothing but fears, and weaknesses, of course it doesn't want to look and fix itself, that would require to suffer, even more.

It's just inconsciousness, there is nothing wrong in itself, we just need to transcend it.
 

the word "ego" or "self" or "higher self" never made much sense to me. neuroscience tells us, that the brain projects multiple "I"'s. Active Paradigm shifting helps to not be attached to constructs. i love my self, by doing that truly, attachment is not possible, it would suffocate my self.

[cirkussmile]

It's an illusion. How can you get rid of an illusion? You can't, you just have to see it for what it is. 

[eskwire]

3 hours ago, arjuna said:

Why not play with it, why not use it and make the world a richer place? 

What plays with it? 

[arjuna]

8 hours ago, cirkussmile said:

It's an illusion. How can you get rid of an illusion? You can't, you just have to see it for what it is. 

How do you define "illusion"? 

6 hours ago, eskwire said:

What plays with it? 

Who asked this question? the answer is the same. 

[eskwire]

2 hours ago, arjuna said:

Who asked this question? the answer is the same. 

It could be said that no one did, it just happened. It could be said the ego did, so is it playing with itself? 

[Salaam]

When people talk of ego on here are they differentiating that in any way from identity? If not, I don't get this desire people have to "get rid" of their identity.

Does it hurt that bad for people? I love my identity, and my desires have grown and matured over the years so that they include more than me.

Personally, I am "I" and "We" at the same time. A part of everything, but while a part of everything, I am also distinct in my localized experience within everything. And that distinction need not be a hard or extreme distinction that takes me to the point of separation. Plus there are degrees and layers of both separation and connection. Even physically speaking, I can be connected by an ephemeral wave or weave of energy to everything in life, while still being physically distant from another person. Our skin may not be touching, but we are still connected, because there are different layers of solidity all interacting at the same time. So on some layers I'm connected to some degree and other layers I'm separate to some degree, which makes a binary yes or no answer useless. 

 

Edited May 15, 2017 by Salaam

[arjuna]

8 hours ago, eskwire said:

It could be said that no one did, it just happened. It could be said the ego did, so is it playing with itself? 

Sure! The problem here is, i suppose, that there is a bias "against" the ego, as if it has some life on its own, tricking us into... what exactly? i see no harm to play with the expressed creation and the player is our self in the body. maybe i am mistaken but i have the same feeling, reading here, that people want to get rid of their identity and i don't get it why. it's an identity in this world. i sense some denial of reality in it and a paradox.

i believe we wanted to be here and i dont get the point to leave as soon as possible, as if this world and the "ego" is like a sickeness or something...

maybe i misinterpret it, but it seems that way...

Don't get me wrong. ultimate reality "experienced". no ego "there". source of all, but is this world a fall? is it a progression? if it is a progression, why try to overcome it?

[Arkandeus]

1 hour ago, arjuna said:

Sure! The problem here is, i suppose, that there is a bias "against" the ego, as if it has some life on its own, tricking us into... what exactly? i see no harm to play with the expressed creation and the player is our self in the body. maybe i am mistaken but i have the same feeling, reading here, that people want to get rid of their identity and i don't get it why. it's an identity in this world. i sense some denial of reality in it and a paradox.

i believe we wanted to be here and i dont get the point to leave as soon as possible, as if this world and the "ego" is like a sickeness or something...

maybe i misinterpret it, but it seems that way...

Don't get me wrong. ultimate reality "experienced". no ego "there". source of all, but is this world a fall? is it a progression? if it is a progression, why try to overcome it?

no one tries to get rid of their core identity, to advance spiritually is to get more in touch with your own unique identity. 
''ego'' is a very vague word though and many can assign different meanings to it.

I personally like this definition of the ego :

"It is the most physically oriented portion of your inner self; but it is
not, however, apart from your inner self. It sits on the window sill, so to
speak, between you and the exterior world.
It can also look in both directions. It makes judgments about the nature
of reality in relationship to its and your needs. It accepts or does not
accept beliefs. It cannot shut out information from your conscious mind,
however — but it can refuse to pay attention to it."

the point is not to get rid of the ego, but to understand its functions and use it a way that benefits you in your spiritual progress, which is ultimately towards love and the blooming of your own individuality. 

for me one facet of the divine ego is one where you can recognize that others are literally a part of you, but that doesn't take away from your unique role in the universe

 

Edited May 15, 2017 by Arkandeus

[Visitor]

@arjuna The mind's basic task is to make sense of the world the brain and body is moving through. It uses all the senses to probe the world it is in. However, the brain has no nerve ends of its own. The brain cannot feel itself. In other words, the mind cannot make sense of itself. So it starts to use memory of what it and the body has achieved to construct a story about itself. Usually a child coming into its second year starts to use these constructs as an identity for self. "I...." sentences start flowing.

This is the ego. It is nothing but a fabricated story, and it really not a valid/real as we deem everything else to be real. The mind censors what is valid and what is not. But it does not want to invalidate the ego or it will not be able to make sense of itself. So the mind fears anything that may 'overcome' or invalidate it. That is why the ego/mind seeks validation 24/7. Anything that threatens its story of validation is felt as fear within us. Self-esteem (ego-energy) is a degree of validation or denial of its truth as being invalid.

The idea of killing off the ego is like asking the mind to kill itself. The best we can do is put it on hold. To be still and quiet, to remain calm, soft and gentle (humble). The mind's task is to seek answers. Whenever we seek the truth it does so, but resists its own truth as best it can. Deep down the mind will learn that it's okay to reveal what has already been revealed about itself (it has already been invalidated there). That is why the truthful can easily return/remain humble.

So the ego, if allowed to run riot, will become obsessed with seeking all the validation it can muster. Self-will-run-riot, is self-centredness in exclusion of anybody else. This can cause a lot of problems for it is at war with all the other egos in the world. Life ignorant is a battle of the egos.

'Overcoming' is not to kill it off, but to put it on hold, so-to-speak, so we can better see the truth. We do this by unveiling the ego's cover-stories (fear stories) of the truth. Each story uncovered requires us to have some faith that it is okay to be vulnerable or exposed. The more revealed the clearer the truth becomes. The mind still is censoring what it thinks what it can handle, or still have meaning for itself. It won't let go of all its story, though it may seem that way. It knows how to be extremely quiet and subtle, tip-toeing around things in hope of not stirring up any more truths.

But it is the truth that will set us free from fears and doubts.

This is my 'story' of why the ego is, and why the 'overcoming' of it is just the mind's cunning, it plays on itself, to stay valid.

[alyra]

eh, everything is ego really. what is self improvement - that is transcending the ego. you see? they are one and the same. 

[arjuna]

@Visitor

12 minutes ago, Visitor said:

But it is the truth that will set us free from fears and doubts.

Nicely put. i can relate to a lot of what you said and think i got a better understanding from it, when i read more in the future from other posts using maybe different words, meaning maybe the same...

Being an outspoken chaotic, paradigmshifting psychonaut, alot of energy goes into rebalancing and maybe without noticing it, i balance my ego through it, without naming it or be aware of it and that's maybe why i didn't understood what was meant here...

every paradigm/model has it's own truth, it's own lies what are true in another model. 

 

[SOUL]

I beat my ego in chess every time because I know all it's moves.

[arjuna]

@aryberry

6 minutes ago, aryberry said:

eh, everything is ego really. what is self improvement - that is transcending the ego. you see? they are one and the same. 

i see what you are saying. so, since EVERY-thing is EGO, transcending everything is self-improvement?

[alyra]

1 hour ago, arjuna said:

@aryberry

i see what you are saying. so, since EVERY-thing is EGO, transcending everything is self-improvement?

yeah something like that. we are entirely composed of ego really. You can get precise about what "ego means" if it helps of course. but, there is no end to self-actualization, and as long as we sit here thinking and observing and believing we exist in this world around us, then we got ego of some kind. 

 

 

it is not really to moralize the ego as bad or evil IMO, the thing about transcending that I understand it - not sure if this is the formal meaning tho - but the way that makes sense is to notice how you can look at something one way and it's got this heavy meaning. but then you discover a new meaning, that uses the exact same words, end yet has a deeper meaning - this is transcending. idk if I explained it well, I need to find a good example for a metaphor. 

[cirkussmile]

On 2017-05-15 at 3:09 AM, arjuna said:

How do you define "illusion"? 

 

Unreal. 

The ego is both real and unreal but can't see the unreal part of everything.

[arjuna]

@cirkussmile If this is true, then how is it possible, that you can state such a sentence. if the ego can't see the unreal part of everything, then how is it possible to state such a sentence from a knowing position? isn't the "knower" not always the ego? if not, what is the part who can state such a thing, unless it's theoretical and thus unreal.

 

[tyy]

@arjuna "A New Earth" by Eckhart Tolle has been teaching me all about this topic, I highly suggest reading.