The nature of The Ego.

[Iamit]

The ego often resonates with some as the defensive character created by mind in response to a request from the organism to protect from the discomfort of rejection. So mind constructs a false character that will best deflect the critisisms of main caretakers.

To be most effective the person forgets that this is a construction (repression) and regards it as the actual character of the organism. It takes energy for the mind to maintain this facade so it monitors the constructon throughout life to see if elements of it, perhaps all of it, can be dropped because the organism has developed to discern and not necessarily see rejection as valid. So to drop the ego one must have developed this discernment and be able to deploy the ego conciously when it feels necessary to deflect rejection, knowing that it is a facade, but until then the ego is an essential defence, dropped at the peril of the organism. It has not been constructed as a defence for no reason. Our mental hospitals are full of people whose ego has been destroyed while still necessary. It is possible to know that the construced character is a defence without the need to destroy it prematurely. You will know if your mind is still running an ego if you refer to yourself as having a character/personality.

[Unseeking Seeker]

***

@ Iamit ... so is what you are saying meaning to be that the ego is a temporary self of mind-body, which hypnotises the actual Self into believing that the ego self is itself and nothing more, with the intent to increase its longevity? If so, then that’s in sync with how I’d tend to look at it.

Why would lunacy arise upon Self recognising that it is in occupation of mind-body as an interface/ vehicle for earth life experience? In fact, quite to the contrary, when ego cravings cease, we are empty within, allowing divine energy* (*cognised as colourations of love ranging from joy, empathy, compassion, bliss and purity) to fill our being. Self and self then align.

The ego-self, as in a separate mind-body identity co-exists with Self and there is an oscillation of attention too. However, over time the fulcrum of consciousness veers towards the true Self, whereupon we feel bliss in an unbroken continuum, being the innate nature of Self.

Note: to simplify over usage of words like self & Self, let’s just say self/ego= deluded consciousness (believing mind-body is the all) and Self= awakened consciousness (we may simply call this as vibration closer to God consciousness)

***

Originally Posted by Iamit

You will know if your mind is still running an ego if you refer to yourself as having a character/personality.

The confusion begins when people 'import' words into Spirituality from other areas of human understandings, then redefine them for their own agenda. This is all that the word 'ego' is. You will know you have an ego if you don't spend time with either Jung or Freud, because they are the ones that coined the word originally - without them you woudn't even be using the word. You should also know that what you're talking about here is not Spirituality but psychoanalysis, that's what any discussion of the ego, personality or lack of is all about.

As for mental hospitals being full of people whose egos were destroyed while still necessary, pretty much every mental health professional would disagree.

If you really want to understand what's happening with the ego and in particular from a perspective of ego death -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E55Z_GDVXM8&t=5s


Your ego is a sense of 'I am', it provides a point of reference for your experiential existence. Without it you would have no cognitive function and therefore not be able to find your way into these forums. If you find yourself in these forums you have an ego.

If you don't Google Jung or Freud because you think you know w3hat the ego is, you have an ego that's inflated.

If you are truly Spiritual then using a word from psychoanalysis and redefining it only causes confusion, especially when there is a perfectly good Sanskrit word that sheds light on the discussion of the ego - "Ahamkara." "Aham" means "I", and "kara" is an "invented thing". The so-called ego is an invented thing, as is ego as the 'bad guy' or ego as a false character for deflection.

When the mind is at peace, it is similar to the calm surface of a lake. Our established thought patterns are like ripples in the lake, each thought causes one ripple at a time. Cognitive dissonance happens when information is received that contradicts the thought patterns, and the conflict causes interference patterns on the surface. This is the reason there are discussions on the ego as the 'bad guy' and not discussions on Ahamkara, even though Ahamkara offers understandings that the 'invented thing' of the ego doesn't. People are 'resistant' to what is not compatible to their brain patterns. It has nothing to do with Spirituality and everything to do with survival instincts.

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Unseeking Seeker

***

@ Iamit ... so is what you are saying meaning to be that the ego is a temporary self of mind-body, which hypnotises the actual Self into believing that the ego self is itself and nothing more, with the intent to increase its longevity? If so, then that’s in sync with how I’d tend to look at it.

Why would lunacy arise upon Self recognising that it is in occupation of mind-body as an interface/ vehicle for earth life experience? In fact, quite to the contrary, when ego cravings cease, we are empty within, allowing divine energy* (*cognised as colourations of love ranging from joy, empathy, compassion, bliss and purity) to fill our being. Self and self then align.

The ego-self, as in a separate mind-body identity co-exists with Self and there is an oscillation of attention too. However, over time the fulcrum of consciousness veers towards the true Self, whereupon we feel bliss in an unbroken continuum, being the innate nature of Self.

Note: to simplify over usage of words like self & Self, let’s just say self/ego= deluded consciousness (believing mind-body is the all) and Self= awakened consciousness (we may simply call this as vibration closer to God consciousness)

***

The character/personality is only a temporary construction while the organism believes that it is really the character of the organism. Once the organism recognises that it is a defensive construction, then the character/personality can be deployed conciously when felt to be necessary for defence, and if the organism has become discerning and secure about rejection, may be dropped altogether.

In this propostion ALL character/personality is a defensive construction of the mind. Some caretakers are more tricky to defend against than others, and some minds are better at this construction than others. People may have some idea how tricky are the people they deal with in thier lives, and the mind may be good at the defensive construction. Other minds may not be so good at it and the organism is left vunerable.

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

The confusion begins when people 'import' words into Spirituality from other areas of human understandings, then redefine them for their own agenda. This is all that the word 'ego' is. You will know you have an ego if you don't spend time with either Jung or Freud, because they are the ones that coined the word originally - without them you woudn't even be using the word. You should also know that what you're talking about here is not Spirituality but psychoanalysis, that's what any discussion of the ego, personality or lack of is all about.

As for mental hospitals being full of people whose egos were destroyed while still necessary, pretty much every mental health professional would disagree. you really want to understand what's happening with the ego and in particular from a perspective of ego death -
https://www.yoithutube.com/watch?v=E55Z_GDVXM8&t=5s


Your ego is a sense of 'I am', it provides a point of reference for your experiential existence. Without it you would have no cognitive function and therefore not be able to find your way into these forums. If you find yourself in these forums you have an ego.

If you don't Google Jung or Freud because you think you know w3hat the ego is, you have an ego that's inflated.

If you are truly Spiritual then using a word from psychoanalysis and redefining it only causes confusion, especially when there is a perfectly good Sanskrit word that sheds light on the discussion of the ego - "Ahamkara." "Aham" means "I", and "kara" is an "invented thing". The so-called ego is an invented thing, as is ego as the 'bad guy' or ego as a false character for deflection.

When the mind is at peace, it is similar to the calm surface of a lake. Our established thought patterns are like ripples in the lake, each thought causes one ripple at a time. Cognitive dissonance happens when information is received that contradicts the thought patterns, and the conflict causes interference patterns on the surface. This is the reason there are discussions on the ego as the 'bad guy' and not discussions on Ahamkara, even though Ahamkara offers understandings that the 'invented thing' of the ego doesn't. People are 'resistant' to what is not compatible to their brain patterns. It has nothing to do with Spirituality and everything to do with survival instincts.

Yes most mainstream mental health workers would agree with you, but most are drug orientated with a few notable exceptions. I have defined what Ego means for me. It seems to mean something different for you. If we do not have agreed terms for discussion purposes, then I wish you well. Seen for what it is, Ego is seen here as a valuable construction while necessary.

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by Iamit

Yes most mainstream mental health workers would agree with you, but most are drug orientated with a few notable exceptions. I have defined what Ego means for me. It seems to mean something different for you. If we do not have agreed terms for discussion purposes, then I wish you well. Seen for what it is, Ego is seen here as a valuable construction while necessary.

Indeed. Different people have different ideas of ego. Some may think of ego just in terms of psychoanalysis, others may happily use the term in the context of a spiritual discussion.

There is no need for someone to insist that the word ego should only be used in a Jung or Freudian sense. If others are happy to refer to ego in a spiritual context then there is no problem.

Peace

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by iamthat

Indeed. Different people have different ideas of ego. Some may think of ego just in terms of psychoanalysis, others may happily use the term in the context of a spiritual discussion.

There is no need for someone to insist that the word ego should only be used in a Jung or Freudian sense. If others are happy to refer to ego in a spiritual context then there is no problem.

Peace

Yes no problem but we would not be discussing the same thing unless a definition of terms could be agreed. Words usually have a defined meaning. The reasons why other different definitions are held may be of interest at least until it is understood why other meanings are preferred. Greenslade defined a meaning which I accept as his/her opinion and understood.

Originally Posted by Iamit

Yes most mainstream mental health workers would agree with you, but most are drug orientated with a few notable exceptions. I have defined what Ego means for me. It seems to mean something different for you. If we do not have agreed terms for discussion purposes, then I wish you well. Seen for what it is, Ego is seen here as a valuable construction while necessary.

How many mainstream mental health workers do you know?


This is what happens when you ignore the fathers of psychoanalysis and think you can psychoanalysis or redefine already well-defined terms. It bites you on the backside and you become nothing more than unwitting victims. If that's what it means to you then I guess you won't be any the wiser after all.

Originally Posted by Iamit

Yes no problem but we would not be discussing the same thing unless a definition of terms could be agreed. Words usually have a defined meaning. The reasons why other different definitions are held may be of interest at least until it is understood why other meanings are preferred. Greenslade defined a meaning which I accept as his/her opinion and understood.

No you shouldn't be using the word 'ego' in Spirituality because it's a word from psychology and has already been well-defined by great minds. So, do you know why your other meanings are preferred?

Originally Posted by iamthat

Indeed. Different people have different ideas of ego. Some may think of ego just in terms of psychoanalysis, others may happily use the term in the context of a spiritual discussion.

There is no need for someone to insist that the word ego should only be used in a Jung or Freudian sense. If others are happy to refer to ego in a spiritual context then there is no problem.

Peace

So from a Spiritual perspective, what happens when a Spiritual person takes a word from another area of understanding, redefines it for the sake of their own agenda of superiority and simply causes confusion and ignorance? When there is another Spirituality correct term that gives understanding and insight but is ignored so that people can use there own definitions of the Spiritually incorrect word?


What are the reasons you use the word 'ego' and not the Sanskrit 'Ahamcara'? Or are you so unaware that you're not talking about ego after all, you're talking about yourself?

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

How many mainstream mental health workers do you know?


This is what happens when you ignore the fathers of psychoanalysis and think you can psychoanalysis or redefine already well-defined terms. It bites you on the backside and you become nothing more than unwitting victims. If that's what it means to you then I guess you won't be any the wiser after all.
No you shouldn't be using the word 'ego' in Spirituality because it's a word from psychology and has already been well-defined by great minds. So, do you know why your other meanings are preferred?

I know many mental health workers, a minority of which are interested in the dynamics of conditions, (rather than just the chemical approach), and the effects of the fragmentation of Ego, and the origin and meaning of the term which is certainly relevant to the concerns in spiritual circles to eliminate the Ego. There is no agreement about the meaning of the word to facilitate discussion. There is no point simply repeating different definitions. Be well and good luck.