Befriending the ego

[Shivani Devi]

There is the Ego, Super Ego and ID. They can exist as friends/enemies in various combinations. They can also work together in harmony, all three of them, as the Tamas, Rajas and Sattvic qualities of the human psyche. Then, there is that which exists outside this whole framework, which is interpreted by the mind and the qualities thereof and given many names and representations.

At times, it can also form a part of the whole mental construct as being separate from the Ego, as long as that awareness exists that it is not the "I"...as long as the awareness exists that it transcends all the modes of material nature, Ego and thought.

Aum Namah Shivaya

[ocean breeze]

[quote=Iamit]

Originally Posted by ocean breeze

What else is there other than the dream of separation? Wherever one goes to end that dream, will be more of that dream. But the feeling of disconnection may end if the whole of the content of the dream itself is included as Oneness manifest, including the whole of oneself, ego and all.

That ending will of course still be dreaming just as the concept of Oneness is within the dream, but there will no longer be the suffering of feeling disconnected while suffering. Including the suffering of having to figure out whether one is dreaming or not!

No escape from the dream ends the search for connection,

:)

You've entered dream world, oneness, and suffering. Going astray.

Originally Posted by Iamit

The ego is the facade of our character/personality constructed by mind for defensive purposes geared to the perceived threats that it has detected in the context of our experience. It is essential to our survival. It takes energy to maintain and mind will only maintain the aspects of it that it regards as relevant. This may vary as we evolve.

Nice. Short, succinct, and accurate.
From an evolutionary perspective, the ego is created by the mind as a representation of self, to be compared to what the mind believes self should be in order to survive and thrive. Where the mind perceives deficiencies, shame is generated to create emotional pain and suffering to motivate change to remedy those deficiencies. I expect it is often when the mind finds too much to feel deficient about and generates too much shame and anxiety that we start to see eliminating the ego as a worthwhile goal. Which I think is a shame as there is much wisdom to be gained from the ego.
When scientists want to study the history of a landscape, they look within it for clues. Types and arrangements of sediments and rocks, types of pollen in lake bed sediments, tree rings, fossils, and many other things can tell the story of what took place in the past and how it all worked to shape the land as it is today. From a soul’s perspective, the ego could play a similar role. What the mind sees self (ego) to be, as well as what it believes self should be, are both heavily influenced by inputs (of all kinds) from the life experience. The ego is an integrator of all that we have experienced throughout life, and it is a living example of how what we do onto others effects them, just like what others do onto us affects us. The way we react to present day experiences, the feelings they generate in us, the beliefs we hold, our tastes, our fears about ourselves, and our anxieties and neurosis, all bear witness to the life we have experienced, and the consequences of those experiences on our minds belief about what self is and what it believes self should be. If we can get past those fears and that pain and realize the ego is not us, but rather is a “facade of our character/personality constructed by mind for defensive purposes geared to the perceived threats that it has detected in the context of our experience” then we may be able to gain some wisdom from it. If we cannot do so in life, the perhaps after life, when the ego is not taken so personally and can be seen and felt with some level of objectivity and compassion for both the character we just were and the characters other souls were and are experiencing. A pretty direct way to learn what love is, what giving it can do, and also what withholding it can do to others, and all gained from the experience of a separate and separated self.

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by ketzer

Nice. Short, succinct, and accurate.
From an evolutionary perspective, the ego is created by the mind as a representation of self, to be compared to what the mind believes self should be in order to survive and thrive. Where the mind perceives deficiencies, shame is generated to create emotional pain and suffering to motivate change to remedy those deficiencies. I expect it is often when the mind finds too much to feel deficient about and generates too much shame and anxiety that we start to see eliminating the ego as a worthwhile goal. Which I think is a shame as there is much wisdom to be gained from the ego.
When scientists want to study the history of a landscape, they look within it for clues. Types and arrangements of sediments and rocks, types of pollen in lake bed sediments, tree rings, fossils, and many other things can tell the story of what took place in the past and how it all worked to shape the land as it is today. From a soul’s perspective, the ego could play a similar role. What the mind sees self (ego) to be, as well as what it believes self should be, are both heavily influenced by inputs (of all kinds) from the life experience. The ego is an integrator of all that we have experienced throughout life, and it is a living example of how what we do onto others effects them, just like what others do onto us affects us. The way we react to present day experiences, the feelings they generate in us, the beliefs we hold, our tastes, our fears about ourselves, and our anxieties and neurosis, all bear witness to the life we have experienced, and the consequences of those experiences on our minds belief about what self is and what it believes self should be. If we can get past those fears and that pain and realize the ego is not us, but rather is a “facade of our character/personality constructed by mind for defensive purposes geared to the perceived threats that it has detected in the context of our experience” then we may be able to gain some wisdom from it. If we cannot do so in life, the perhaps after life, when the ego is not taken so personally and can be seen and felt with some level of objectivity and compassion for both the character we just were and the characters other souls were and are experiencing. A pretty direct way to learn what love is, what giving it can do, and also what withholding it can do to others, and all gained from the experience of a separate and separated self.

Yes and mind will do that monitoring automatically and make whatever adjustments to ego it deems appropriate relative to perceived threats. The more secure we feel in our relationships, the less defensive ego will need to be, with a proportionate increase in our capacity for unconditional love.

Mind is doing this for us right now. Success rates vary as the details of our experience vary. Some much more severe than others.

[Iamit]

[quote=ocean breeze]

Originally Posted by Iamit

You've entered dream world, oneness, and suffering. Going astray.

It could be sufficient for you that the idea that you are dreaming difference where there is none does not resonate for you. But for some reason you need to add that those who disagree with you are "Going astray".

It could advantageous to reflect on why that extra step is necessary for you.

:)

[ocean breeze]

[quote=Iamit]

Originally Posted by ocean breeze

It could be sufficient for you that the idea that you are dreaming difference where there is none does not resonate for you. But for some reason you need to add that those who disagree with you are "Going astray".

It could advantageous to reflect on why that extra step is necessary for you.

:)

I don't see any disagreement. But since it wasn't addressed, i'll just assume you agree that one can always take it further than just seeing the mind as a creator and defender. That's really all i was saying.

[Moondance]

[quote=Iamit]

Originally Posted by ocean breeze

The end to feeling disconnected from Oneness does not have to mean modifying or eliminating the ego because the ego must already be Oneness appearing as that ego.

Yes, the end to feeling disconnected from Oneness does not have to mean modifying or eliminating the ego but it does require the ‘seeing through’ of ego. (The real meaning of ego in spiritual/nondual teachings is ‘ego identification’, attachment the limited self (ahamkara). Seeing through the limited phenomenal self and having the realisation of the truth of our situation is awakening.)

Oneness is always the case - yet the realisation of it is not. This is the significance of ‘seeing through’ the ego.

[quote=Moondance]

Originally Posted by Iamit

Oneness is always the case - yet the realisation of it is not. This is the significance of ‘seeing through’ the ego.

True, yet in comprehending such a statement, the difficulty arises in how one can conceptualize the seer that is 'seeing through' the ego as something other than another form of ego?

[Moondance]

[quote=ketzer]

Originally Posted by Moondance

True, yet in comprehending such a statement, the difficulty arises in how one can conceptualize the seer that is 'seeing through' the ego as something other than another form of ego?

Hi ketzer

I’m not sure how ‘seeing through’ requires an ego if we are acknowledging ego as identification with the phenomenal self since ‘seeing through’ is the very seeing through of that phenomenal self i.e. seeing it for what it is, a play of Oneness. And to be clear, I’m not suggesting that the phenomenal self is a mere illusion that vanishes in the light of the truth, rather, that to see it as an inherently existing, independent entity is a form of delusion.

So ‘seeing through’ could be said to be a patterning/presentation of Source/Oneness - just as reading these words is (there’s no requirement for ego identification in order to read these words.)

[quote=Moondance]

Originally Posted by ketzer

Hi ketzer

I’m not sure how ‘seeing through’ requires an ego if we are acknowledging ego as identification with the phenomenal self since ‘seeing through’ is the very seeing through of that phenomenal self i.e. seeing it for what it is, a play of Oneness. And to be clear, I’m not suggesting that the phenomenal self is a mere illusion that vanishes in the light of the truth, rather, that to see it as an inherently existing, independent entity is a form of delusion.

So ‘seeing through’ could be said to be a patterning/presentation of Source/Oneness - just as reading these words is (there’s no requirement for ego identification in order to read these words.)

Hello Moondance

What I am getting at is the inherent conflict in the concept of seeing through the ego and realizing all is one and the ego is not the self. If the ego is the minds concept of self, then can the mind conceptualize that it is not the self without also conceptualizing something else that is doing the seeing (conceptualizing). If so, then is this not the minds new concept of self (i.e. a different phenomenal self or another type/form of ego which it is now seeing as self)? In other words, there is an inherent duality in a seer that sees through the phenomenon, there is both a subject (seer) and an object (phenomenon - ego in this case), two things, not one. Can oneness be aware of itself as one or must it first create a separate self (subject that is aware) to be aware of other things or concepts (objects of awareness)? Can the universe be aware of itself without first creating a set of eyes (from itself) through which to look at itself with? Can the universe be the cake and eat it too? Apparently, but how.....IDK.