The nature of The Ego.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Sounds like we are in agreement, only using different systems and language to point in the same direction.

Before I came across Vedanta in general and Advaita specifically I spent a good decade delving into consciousness from the perspective of secular meditation, neuroscience, philosophy of mind, physics and psychology. I don't have your depth of knowledge on the psychology end but was exposed to the general concepts. Same for everything else. Jack of all trades, master of none. LOL!

And yeah, enlightenment is just a word but a very loaded word and of course prone to appropriation by Ahamkara. "I am enlightened!".

While I was ploughing through info on Ahamkara I clicked one of the links that led to an explanation of the word. As I read that through it sounded more and more like cognitive behaviour, and cognitive behaviour therapy is something that has come through fairly recently. I don't know how much of a time gap there is between the ancients' wisdom and cognitive behaviour or Jung, but it shows how much the ancients knew and how little things have changed in so many thousands of years. Same system, different language.


Sometimes having an open mind isn't such a bad thing though, a toolbox with more than just Spirituality is a great help in understanding Spirituality because it can help to distinguish which is what and where it comes from. When you understand that there's more to you than meets the eye it can be enlightening outside of the labels. It also provides a very different perspective and understanding - and appreciation of who we are as 'regular' humans.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Good post, but is the thinking of I am, the same as the heart feeling of I am?

The 'thinking I am' is the Jungian ego/Ahamaka at work, it consists of all those 'contents' that we identify and/or associate with as being what we consist of. Such as "I am Spiritual, enlightened, clever......" Associating/identifying with "I am" as a Spiritual concept/ideology or an escape is status as far as the ego is concerned. The ego makes no distinction between status in a context of money or perceptual Spiritual understanding, so as far as the ego is concerned "I am rich" and "I am oh so Spiritual" is the "thinking I am" or what the ego perceives itself to consist of. The "heart I am" - depending on how you personally experience it - is beyond ego because there is no thinking involved - it's beyond the brain/mind/ego mechanism. It is a feeling beyond feeling or Gnosis/knowing, consciousness..... and is a 'pure' personal source/core I Am. It's the difference between "I am" and "I am enlightened/Spiritual."

Originally Posted by Greenslade

The "heart I am" - depending on how you personally experience it - is beyond ego because there is no thinking involved - it's beyond the brain/mind/ego mechanism. It is a feeling beyond feeling or Gnosis/knowing, consciousness..... and is a 'pure' personal source/core I Am. It's the difference between "I am" and "I am enlightened/Spiritual."

So there's this concept in meditation called the observer trap. It's not getting to true non-dual experience - the Witness, if you will - just a more benign manifestation of ego/Ahamaka. I'm thinking that's the cognitive behavior you referenced. It's an appropriation by ego/Ahamaka.

For anyone interested I'd suggest resting in awareness also referred to as choiceless awareness or do-nothing meditation. It's an open technique sans any object of attention. Of course focused meditation is a good first step as it stills and concentrates the mind and facilitates the more advanced practice of resting in awareness.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

So there's this concept in meditation called the observer trap. It's not getting to true non-dual experience - the Witness, if you will - just a more benign manifestation of ego/Ahamaka. I'm thinking that's the cognitive behavior you referenced. It's an appropriation by ego/Ahamaka.

Cognitive behaviour is the process of constructing perceptual reality, where one cognitive behaviour is destructive and another is constructive - for instance, labelling yourself as Spiritual. The understanding is not that you've decided that you're Spiritual but the reasons you do so that is the constructive or destructive cognitive behaviour. Positive thinking is destructive cognitive behaviour because it's an escape from the reality of the emotional response - you feel really bad because it really sucks but you're forcing yourself to feel better. Constructive cognitive behaviour would be to acknowledge feelings and emotions, and dismantle the perceptual reality that created the response in the first place. It's the difference, for example, between thinking positive because you were betrayed or working out that you felt betrayed because you were just too naive. That way there's a kind of 'feedback loop' happening with the go/Ahamkara, the positive thinking comes from the ego and the cognitive behaviour feeds back to the ego to create your sense of I am. Putting it very simply. It's not subordinate or an appropriation but more of a co-conspirator.

Duality comes from pitching 'this' against 'that' - light vs dark, good vs bad..... The light simply IS, the dark simply IS, and both have a raison d'etre or a reason to be. That's the 'default'. What happens next is created by the ego - light good, dark bad but that's judgement and, frankly, ignorance. The observer and the observed is not duality because the observer and the observed are one and the same. If there is a 'single point' - I/observer - and a relationship with something 'external' - the observed - that is ego. What is being observed is the observer's perceptual reality. Where it starts getting silly and you really want to escape the observer trap you have to observe the observer observing the observed. You are not your thoughts but your thoughts are you.

With duality you have three options, you can either not create it in the first place or transcend it completely. Or stay stuck in it.

When it comes to consciousness there is just what one is conscious of, and consciousness is always seemingly another 'layer' on top of itself yet the same. It's difficult to explain, really. You can become conscious that duality, non-duality, dichotomies, Triplex Unity and Buddhist Sacred Geometry all bring understandings of their own, and each is a valid tool with which to process reality. It's all about relationships. With consciousness itself there is no 'external', no sense of 'I', no observer/observed... there is just consciousness.