Who Is The Ego?

[Alexandre]

Hello everyone!

At the present moment I’m bothered with a question. The problem is that I don’t know who is the ego and who is not. I accept that the sense of an entity called “I” is an illusion. I can understand that there is no “master behind the scenes” who rules and controls the actions of my life. For me, the sense of “I” is an emergent property of the body-mind system. As an emergent property, it does not have existence itself – that’s why it is called illusion. The illusion is created by the intricate body-mind system (which is part of reality) and it takes thoughts (which are also an illusory emergent property) and claims control and possession over it. I am aware that we have no control over our thoughts and over our actions… And the interesting fact is that, although I understand and accept the illusory nature of that “I”, I can’t free myself of its modus operandi. The act of writing a question to this forum is an egoistic driven action. It represents the need of reason and logic, the “everything in its place” feeling that is typical of rationalism. That’s why the state of not knowing that I am right now is so painful (for the ego, of course). There is no logic and reason in reality itself. Contradictions are created and are only a problem for the ego.

My question is: why not identify ourselves with the body-mind system? This system is a brute natural element of reality, so it is a part of the whole field of reality.  In the “Neti Neti method” video, Leo told us to seek for that element, that “thing” that have always been constant in our entire lives. Of course our body and mind changes throughout the course of our lives, but why is that a problem?  Reality itself is a constant flow of change. Our body-mind system is changing all the time, so is reality. That is why the biological system is a part of reality.

And about awareness… Who is being aware and perceiving reality? I think that we can only be aware of things due to process of the body-mind system. Can we still be aware of external world things when the body-mind is turned off? For instance, can we perceive the sound of a bird when we are dead? I don’t think so…

Therefore, why not connect ourselves with the body-mind system as a part of reality itself? I am not talking about the “I” feeling who wants to control things…. Because if we truly link ourselves with the biological system we would instantly surrender to reality. The biological system is influenced by all of the “external” things in the environment, so the only “choice” that is left when you accept this is to surrender yourself to this constant changing reality.

Deep inside I feel that it is possibly one more of the many masks of the ego, so here I am searching for help haha. I would appreciate anyone who wants to help me… Thanks!!

[Primeval]

What is this you wish to connect to the body-mind system?

[Anton Rogachevski]

18 hours ago, Alexandre said:

thoughts (which are also an illusory emergent property)

Thoughts by themselves are real, yet their content, or rather story is of illusory nature. You will feel it one day when your awareness increases dramatically, it takes a lot of practice.

 

18 hours ago, Alexandre said:

although I understand and accept the illusory nature of that “I”, I can’t free myself of its modus operandi

The need to understand, accept, free yourself, is the need of the ego. The only way to be free is to inquire into the nature of it by self inquiry until the need to associate yourself with anything at all will dissolve. it's very hard for you to imagine after a lifetime of being a self, to realize that no such gadget is needed.

 

18 hours ago, Alexandre said:

My question is: why not identify ourselves with the body-mind system?

The need to identify yourself with anything at all comes from that same need, the fear of losing identity. Although it is a good idea to connect to your body sensually, and being aware of it without calling this phenomenon by any name. your body is as real as it gets, and theoretically the only reality for you, but let not the beautiful concepts fool you into "thinking your way" into this state. I've caught myself doing it a lot after listening to beautiful ideas by Alan Watts : )

 

18 hours ago, Alexandre said:

For instance, can we perceive the sound of a bird when we are dead? I don’t think so…

The fact that your awareness is actually the whole works, means that maybe you won't hear, but any other being will, but what separates you from them, even after death?

Edited May 31, 2016 by Actualizer

[Alexandre]

3 hours ago, Lha Bho said:

What is this you wish to connect to the body-mind system?

As a part of reality, the body-mind system would be connected to the source of thoughts, feelings and counsciousness. Those can exist without an ego. The illusion, in the other hand, would be the thing that claims ownership over them. 

 

1 hour ago, Actualizer said:

The need to identify yourself with anything at all comes from that same need, the fear of losing identity. Although it is a good idea to connect to your body sensually, and being aware of it without calling this phenomenon by any name. your body is as real as it gets, and theoretically the only reality for you, but let not the beautiful concepts fool you into "thinking your way" into this state. I've caught myself doing it a lot after listening to beautiful ideas by Alan Watts : )

Yep, I agree haha... I feel that the need to identifying with things its just the ego choosing another mask to hide behind. I do connect with my body during mindfulness meditation sessions, and I think that it is a good idea to increase awareness... 

You said about "thinking my way" to this state... I feel that no matter what we say, we would not be able to grasp the things that we are trying to grasp with words... Words are more conceptualization, and the more you conceptualize, the more you lose the connection with reality itself.

1 hour ago, Actualizer said:

The fact that your awareness is actually the whole works, means that maybe you won't hear, but any other being will, but what separates you from them, even after dead

But... Even a person who is enligthened and have realized oneness can't be aware of the things that a bird is aware, right? I really don't know some of the actual implications of such realization... 

 

Thanks for the answers!! 

[Khin]

There is no entity. It is named for an illusion of the sense of self. Since sense of self is an illusion, ego also turn out an illusion. No one is acting and controlling. People are only reacting. 

Here is very funny thing ... they said... "Thanks to mother nature, dogs on Alaska have two layers of fur coat."

Actually, dogs themselves are mother nature, aren't they? 

[Emerald]

9 hours ago, Alexandre said:

Hello everyone!

At the present moment I’m bothered with a question. The problem is that I don’t know who is the ego and who is not. I accept that the sense of an entity called “I” is an illusion. I can understand that there is no “master behind the scenes” who rules and controls the actions of my life. For me, the sense of “I” is an emergent property of the body-mind system. As an emergent property, it does not have existence itself – that’s why it is called illusion. The illusion is created by the intricate body-mind system (which is part of reality) and it takes thoughts (which are also an illusory emergent property) and claims control and possession over it. I am aware that we have no control over our thoughts and over our actions… And the interesting fact is that, although I understand and accept the illusory nature of that “I”, I can’t free myself of its modus operandi. The act of writing a question to this forum is an egoistic driven action. It represents the need of reason and logic, the “everything in its place” feeling that is typical of rationalism. That’s why the state of not knowing that I am right now is so painful (for the ego, of course). There is no logic and reason in reality itself. Contradictions are created and are only a problem for the ego.

My question is: why not identify ourselves with the body-mind system? This system is a brute natural element of reality, so it is a part of the whole field of reality.  In the “Neti Neti method” video, Leo told us to seek for that element, that “thing” that have always been constant in our entire lives. Of course our body and mind changes throughout the course of our lives, but why is that a problem?  Reality itself is a constant flow of change. Our body-mind system is changing all the time, so is reality. That is why the biological system is a part of reality.

And about awareness… Who is being aware and perceiving reality? I think that we can only be aware of things due to process of the body-mind system. Can we still be aware of external world things when the body-mind is turned off? For instance, can we perceive the sound of a bird when we are dead? I don’t think so…

Therefore, why not connect ourselves with the body-mind system as a part of reality itself? I am not talking about the “I” feeling who wants to control things…. Because if we truly link ourselves with the biological system we would instantly surrender to reality. The biological system is influenced by all of the “external” things in the environment, so the only “choice” that is left when you accept this is to surrender yourself to this constant changing reality.

Deep inside I feel that it is possibly one more of the many masks of the ego, so here I am searching for help haha. I would appreciate anyone who wants to help me… Thanks!!

It is equally valid to live the illusion of ego identification or to see through the illusion. But if you're interested in experiencing what is true, then you have to see through your identification. The ego is a collection of thoughts centered around and related to a single (illusory) thought called "me." You can't get rid of that collection of thoughts, you can only see through the illusion of "I" which will decenter those thoughts and make them less important. This means that you will be free of all neuroses and complexes that arise from your attempts to protect this collection of thoughts called ego. You will realize that psychological harm isn't real because there is no ego to harm. So, it is preferable to see through ego. But it is also perfectly normal and natural to identify with ego. But it is an illusion that causes much unnecessary suffering. 

[vizual]

@Emerald Wilkins I like how Matt Kahn says it; being identified with ego is living in crazytown. 

Just because everyone's doing it doesn't mean it's perfectly normal and natural. When the whole world is insane is it then okay to be insane as well? I would have to answer that question with a negative. I can come up with all kinds of analogies, but in short, turning your cheek on the truth is never an honorable or even natural thing to do. 

[Anton Rogachevski]

14 hours ago, Alexandre said:

But... Even a person who is enligthened and have realized oneness can't be aware of the things that a bird is aware, right? I really don't know some of the actual implications of such realization... 

of course not : )

but in terms of reality what separates him from the bird?

[Anton Rogachevski]

9 hours ago, Emerald Wilkins said:

You will realize that psychological harm isn't real because there is no ego to harm.

I suppose that the fact that ego itself is illusory, doesn't mean that there are no feelings, in fact they are felt stronger after the release. It's the ego that wants to act stoic and say nothing hurts it, but in reality we are very sensitive and vulnerable.

[cetus]

20 hours ago, Alexandre said:

@Alexandre My question is: why not identify ourselves with the body-mind system? This system is a brute natural element of reality, so it is a part of the whole field of reality.  In the “Neti Neti method” video, Leo told us to seek for that element, that “thing” that have always been constant in our entire lives. Of course our body and mind changes throughout the course of our lives, but why is that a problem?  Reality itself is a constant flow of change. Our body-mind system is changing all the time, so is reality. That is why the biological system is a part of reality.

@Alexandre I question this all the time myself. Not exactly "identify", but more as to except the fact that mind is a part of reality. What is constant? The mind constantly witnessing a changing existence. Through the mind and a sense of I'ness, it experiences existence expressing itself in an infinite number of forms and also the realization of the oneness behind the many.  Isn't that part of the miracle of existence expressing itself through the minds awareness of it? There is no "I" - O.K., but what is this unshakable witness that experiences this beautiful diversity of existence expressing itself in so many different forms? What sees these posts and responds to them? Something remains. Everything is in balance when the one is realized as being the source of the many within this realm of physical reality.  That is not to say that mind will than cease to exist or we should deny it's existence if the one is realized as the true source of the many. I'm not talking to a point of fault as ego/self that excludes the whole, but to the point that diversity can be appreciated in each individual expression by the mind.  I can only go by my experience of the one expressing itself in a multitude of beautiful expressions within existence through the minds eye.

by Steve Taylor.

If there is one concept which has been under constant attack by psychologists and philosophers over the last few decades, it is the idea of ‘you’ – that you are a real entity or ‘self’. Many modern philosophers and scientists suggest that this sense of being ‘someone’ is illusory, or just a simple product of brain activity. Somehow the billions of neurons in your brain work together to produce it, and all of the thoughts and feelings which it incorporates. This view was expressed very graphically by the scientist Francis Crick, who wrote that:

‘You, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.’

From a less biological perspective, the philosopher Daniel Dennett speaks of the illusion of the ‘Cartesian Theatre’, the sense that there is ‘someone’ in our heads looking out at a world ‘out there’, and also watching our own thoughts pass by. In reality, says Dennett, there are only mental processes. There are streams of thoughts, sensations and perceptions passing through our brains, but there is no central place where all of these phenomena are organised.

Similarly, the psychologist Susan Blackmore has suggested that the self is just a collection of what she calls ‘memes’ – units of cultural information such as ideas, beliefs and habits. We are born without a self, but slowly, as we are exposed to environmental influences, the self is ‘constructed’ out of the memes we absorb.

Modern neuroscience seems to reinforce such views. Neuroscientists claim to be able to ‘locate’ the parts of the brain responsible for mental phenomena such as aesthetic appreciation, religious experience, love, depression and so on, but they haven’t found a part of the brain associated with our underlying sense of self. Therefore, they feel justified in concluding that this doesn’t exist.

‘Ghosts don’t Exist’, says the Ghost

There are many problems with the attempt to ‘reduce’ our sense of self to brain activity.  This is related to ‘hard problem’ of explaining the origins of conscious experience – so-called to distinguish it from the ‘easy problems’ of mental abilities and functions such as memory, concentration and attention. Whilst we might be able to understand these phenomena, the problem of how the brain might produce consciousness is on a completely different level. The brain is just a soggy clump of grey matter – how could that soggy mass possibly give rise to the richness and depth of consciousness? To think that it could is a ‘category error’ – the brain and consciousness are entirely distinct phenomena, which can’t be explained in terms of each other.

And on a more practical basis, after decades of intensive theorising and research, no-one has yet put forward any feasible explanation of how the brain might produce consciousness. The ‘hard problem’ seems completely insurmountable. There is a basic absurdity in these attempts to show that the ‘self’ is illusory. They always feature a self trying to prove that it doesn’t exist. They are caught in a loop. If the self is an illusion to begin with, how can we trust its judgements? It’s a bit like a ghost trying to prove that ghosts don’t exist. Perhaps it may be right, but its illusory nature doesn’t inspire confidence. Dennett and Blackmore are presuming that there is a kind of reliable, objective observer inside them which is able to pass judgement on consciousness – and that presumption contradicts their own arguments. That is the very thing whose existence they are trying to disprove.

Related to this, there is a problem of subject/object confusion. All of these theories attempt to examine consciousness from the outside. They treat it like a botanist examining a flower, as an object to scrutinize and categorize. But of course, with consciousness there is no subject and no object. The subject is the object. You are consciousness. So it is fallacious to examine it as if it is something ‘other.’ Again, you are caught in a loop. You can’t get outside consciousness. And so any ‘objective’ pronouncements you make about are fallacious from the start.

An interesting question to ponder is: why do human beings invest so much energy into trying to prove that they don’t exist? Why do scientists and philosophers seem so intent on proving that they themselves are illusions? Perhaps there is a kind of repressed suicidal impulse at work here. Perhaps the individuals in question experience a deep-rooted self-hatred and an impulse for self-destruction which, at conscious level, has been translated into an impulse to negate their own identity and existence. More likely, though, these views are symptom of the general nihilism of our culture, the collapse of values which has followed from materialistic science.  The fact that these theories have become prevalent, despite being fallacious, shows how well they fit to the present ‘zeitgeist’.

Subjective Investigation

So does the self exist? Is there really anybody there inside your own mental space?

I think the best way to answer the question is to take a different approach. Rather than attempting to analyse consciousness from the outside as if it is an object, the best approach is to embrace subjectivity, and delve into your own consciousness. Try meditation, for example. In deep meditation, you might find yourself in a state of complete mental quietness and emptiness, with no thoughts, no perceptions, no information processing, no concentration. In fact, this state can be seen as the ‘goal’ of meditation (at least according to some traditions). The philosopher Robert Forman has called it the ‘pure consciousness event’ – a state in which consciousness exists without content, and rests easefully within itself. I have experienced this state myself, and am familiar with its qualities. Paradoxically, although consciousness is empty, it has a quality of fullness too. It appears to be full of energy – a powerful energy which has a quality of well-being, or even bliss. (This is what Indian Vedanta philosophy describes as satchitananda – being-consciousness-bliss.) There is also a quality of spaciousness – somehow my own consciousness seems to become wider and larger, to spread beyond my own brain or body. This can lead to a sense of connection or even oneness – a feeling that my consciousness is merging with a force or energy which somehow seems fundamental to the world, or the cosmos.

But most importantly in terms of my argument in this article, in these moments, one of the qualities of consciousness is a sense of ‘I’. There is still a sense of identity, even if this sense may be different to the identity of a normal state of consciousness.  This identity does not feel separate or boundaried. It feels part of a greater unity, but still has a sense of I-ness. You could compare it to a wave having a sense of its own existence of a wave but at the same time being aware of itself as a part of the sea. There is still an ‘I’ which has awareness of itself and of its situation. From this point of view, it appears that consciousness or identity is not an illusion. In this state, there are no ‘memes’ and no streams of mental processes, but consciousness still appears to exist. I would therefore say that the sense of self is fundamental to us, from the deepest levels of our being. Of course, this fundamental sense of ‘I’ is acted on by all kinds environmental, social and psychological influences, and becomes ‘constructed’ to a large degree. You could compare it to how a Roman fort is built upon and expanded over centuries until eventually develops into a modern city. But there is a fundamental kernel of ‘I-ness’ which is always there, underlying all of the activity and all the construction

[Emerald]

2 hours ago, vizual said:

@Emerald Wilkins I like how Matt Kahn says it; being identified with ego is living in crazytown. 

Just because everyone's doing it doesn't mean it's perfectly normal and natural. When the whole world is insane is it then okay to be insane as well? I would have to answer that question with a negative. I can come up with all kinds of analogies, but in short, turning your cheek on the truth is never an honorable or even natural thing to do. 

Certainly it is preferable to be free of ego because sanity is preferable. But it still doesn't invalidate being identified with ego. Being insane isn't inherently lesser than being sane. Most people are, so it is most natural to be identified with ego. So, it is ironically more natural to be unnatural. But honor itself is an invention of ego, so neither is more honorable than the other. Neither is more significant. Neither is less valid. If you think about it, we only have 80 years (give or take) to live as this ego. We only have a limited time to be insane. We have an eternity to be the existential self in its supreme sanity. Perhaps, enlightened people are like the slackers that decided to skip the humanity homework of ego-identification.  

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

I suppose that the fact that ego itself is illusory, doesn't mean that there are no feelings, in fact they are felt stronger after the release. It's the ego that wants to act stoic and say nothing hurts it, but in reality we are very sensitive and vulnerable.

This was what my experience was during my enlightenment experiences. I was able to feel the full depth and breadth of my emotions because I was allowing them into my awareness. I felt both positive and negative emotions and both carried wisdom with them. The negative ceased to be negative because they meant nothing about "me". They were just occurrences.

[Alexandre]

9 hours ago, cetus56 said:

The philosopher Robert Forman has called it the ‘pure consciousness event’ – a state in which consciousness exists without content, and rests easefully within itself.

Is that state what the mystics call Samadhi?

 

9 hours ago, cetus56 said:

This identity does not feel separate or boundaried. It feels part of a greater unity, but still has a sense of I-ness.

That's interesting... It's another way of seeing enlightenment: instead of looking at it as the losing of boundaries, it can be interpreted as the expansion of the "boundaries of I". I think that is the kind of thing that just an enlightened people may know haha

 

9 hours ago, Emerald Wilkins said:

This was what my experience was during my enlightenment experiences. I was able to feel the full depth and breadth of my emotions because I was allowing them into my awareness. I felt both positive and negative emotions and both carried wisdom with them. The negative ceased to be negative because they meant nothing about "me". They were just occurrences.

That's so nice... I had an interesting experience as well, during my first retreat at a Zen monastery (what they call sesshin). I think that it was not an enlightenment experience, but it was quite remarkable to me...  I was in the middle of a meditation session, with a lot of pain in my legs. Suddenly, I felt that all experiencies that I was perceiving (thoughts, sounds, pain, etc...) were in the same level. I was aware of my thoughts in the exactly same way that I was aware of my pain and of the sounds around me. And for a briefly period of time my pain did not felt as "my" pain, but just "the" pain. All of the elements in my awareness were just there. My level of identification with sounds, pain and thoughts was the same. It didn't last long... but after that, I felt a great feeling of happiness, compassion and peace of mind. It was a very nice experience for me. And as you said, "the negative ceased to be negative", because the pain in my legs were no more bothering me... How long do you think that your experience last? 

[Mal]

Hi All..

In my experience when the centre drops out of the mind there is only thoughts and feelings.  Now the party really gets in full swing as many repressed thoughts and feeling can jump into the space that's left vacant when the "I" has made an exit.  

This movement I believe is called "emotional regulation".  Feelings stored in the body and mind create a repetitive loop much akin to the film "Groundhog Day" where all we can experience is an accumulation of the same film being projected outward toward the environment and inward toward the physical body, and when the self is present this pent up energy even attacks the ego.

The only way I know of to self regulate in a healthy way is to reside in non-dual awareness and allow the integration to happen naturally with the ego firmly out of the way.  Ego's cannot self regulate because the shadow material is just taken way too personally -

No "I" = No problem!