Ego question I would love help with......

[Lightwaves]

Whether negative or positive the allure of the ego can be strong. The nice emotions and the negative emotions are all wrapped up together in a personalized identity. It's not necessarily that negative emotions are craved I feel. I feel it's the ego itself that is craved. Why? Why do we become drawn into the ego even though it brings us suffering? That is a brilliant question.

I feel we are habituated to be intoxicated by personal identity. If you have ever had an allergic reaction or had hives for some reason you may know they really itch! It's sort of like that I think. The more we scratch the stronger the itch becomes -- the stronger the allure. The less we scratch the egoic itch the less and less intoxicated by things we are. If we can get that foothold outside of ego and hold it the allure decreases.

[guthrio]

Originally Posted by bflare

My knowledge on the ego is that it is our conditioned false self. It is the identification that we have given ourselves. For example, I am Tony, I am an engineer, I don’t like winter etc etc. Hope I am correct so far? The ego lives in the past & future & finds it hard to live in the present?
One question that I am struggling with is the following:
We have a set of limiting beliefs from our childhood etc that hold us back on certain things. If one of those limiting beliefs is that people don’t like us then we will tend to attract that from people. So when someone says something to us that we perceive as hurtful we immediately feel the emotion of hurt or & maybe the physical feeling of pain. Now if we can rationalise this & observe the emotion instead of feeling the emotion & the subsequent pain then why is it so hard to do this? It feels as if we want the negativity & the pain but this would be insane. Is it actually the ego that wants this negativity to feed on it therefore carry on its existence?

Hope I have not lost anyone haha.

Thanks,

Tony.

Tony,

You ask, "Now if we can rationalise this & observe the emotion instead of feeling the emotion & the subsequent pain then why is it so hard to do this?"

Consider that the very same muscles one uses to "hold on tight to beliefs", so to speak....work equally well to let those "long-held" beliefs go....by your choice, by your hand.

True power is not in vigorously holding Truth (as some egoic possession)....

.....but in be-holding Truth as a gift so wonderful that you would joyously share it with any and all at anytime so they could feel as wonderful as you do !!

Choose to "be-leaveing" those constraining beliefs behind.

After all, it's only your power that holds them....and your power that releases them.

Ego acts as if dawn is separate from itself....."I observe that"

Spirit knows Itself as every dawn.....silently.

Be-hold how one's Spirit rises as dawning Truth, here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhVIllCYjd0 Appalachian Sunrise by Gary Remal Malkin

[DreamKey]

Originally Posted by Zydek

Whether negative or positive the allure of the ego can be strong. The nice emotions and the negative emotions are all wrapped up together in a personalized identity. It's not necessarily that negative emotions are craved I feel. I feel it's the ego itself that is craved. Why? Why do we become drawn into the ego even though it brings us suffering? That is a brilliant question.

I feel we are habituated to be intoxicated by personal identity. If you have ever had an allergic reaction or had hives for some reason you may know they really itch! It's sort of like that I think. The more we scratch the stronger the itch becomes -- the stronger the allure. The less we scratch the egoic itch the less and less intoxicated by things we are. If we can get that foothold outside of ego and hold it the allure decreases.

I'm not sure if I would say the ego can be craved, but if you're talking about craving ego gratification then I would agree.

The issue with the ego, if we're talking about thought identification, is that there is a dynamic which embeds the identification. Until this dynamic is made conscious, the layers of identification, compensation mechanisms, and self seeking loops roll out and get more complex. The dynamics stay the same, but the emotional coils and threads of identity can get tied into all sorts of desires, fears, and experiences, some associated with past, some with future.

It is the unconsciousness prevalent in the conceptual framework that perpetuates suffering. The present moment is resisted as a projection of the resistance going on internally. This externalization is a form of unconscious resolution, but it must be performed repeatedly because the core issue, unconsciousness, is not being addressed.

In this sense the ego is craved, or more pointedly experiences sought/resisted, because of lack of noticing of how the mind not only creates negative feelings, but also a mechanism to avoid them. In many ways, that mechanism is ego itself.

[DreamKey]

Originally Posted by guthrio

Tony,

You ask, "Now if we can rationalise this & observe the emotion instead of feeling the emotion & the subsequent pain then why is it so hard to do this?"

Consider that the very same muscles one uses to "hold on tight to beliefs", so to speak....work equally well to let those "long-held" beliefs go....by your choice, by your hand.

I would not say beliefs are let go by choice. I would say limiting beliefs formulate unconsciously, and with consciousness of the forces that keep them in place, the beliefs are spontaneously let go, without anyone doing anything.

This is all about noticing beliefs, and nothing at all about doing anything with them. Of course inquiry, using logic to pierce and probe, can allow the beliefs to be noticed. Probe beliefs from the inside, notice beliefs from the outside. Point being that what you are is a noticer, and not the ego, not the belief.

[firstandlast]

There is a part of you that does desire to suffer, but that which you have no context to understand your own desire for pain-- Thus desire seems to be the root of pain, but that the word makes what is a pleasure appear as fright; that there is one will, but that the words distort appearances so that the same will can appear to be pushed or pulled; and this is because our meaning can be expressed in multiple ways, but that each way means a different experience in form--

So that words hide our desire, by the experience that conceals the meaning; but that meaning already is, but without complete context that meaning is not apparent; so that when we find meaning, we do not realize we have found another word, which is the light-- And meaning which is the emptiness when it isn't approached by spirit; so that people continue to be materialistic thinking they are without material, but that they do not know creations intent, and so their own intent is distorted in definition because you do not know your own intent in your greater intent of all--

So, it isn't healing that occurs, because you have thought yourself harmed; but that an identity occurs but that identity is of an order that appears as something different and opposite when we talk about ascension which is real; but that it was made to appear hard and the longest process, so that you might not feel so distraught knowing that there is no spiritual process; and that such ascension was a change in identity in a manner that appeared greater than death, but that it is alive; and such one only needed approval by necessity in order to go beyond suffering--

So that, unless all the world is alive; and that life is the premise-- That you exist in the opposite of an ego, and that is someone else's idea; whom hides your own will to allow such to be that way--

This is a dream, but that this is also life-- But that no one has found unity, only understood the union; but that no one has been dualistic or had a self to have an ego, and this should be apparent; because duality would work if we had acted separately, but that we acted united-- And love cannot exist where no one can understand what they love, and that no one can be loved when unity is the truth, because when the order of relations is forcing everyone under the same law, that different people cannot be understood differently when acting the same.. so that in order for harmony to exist, people must act as different as they can, so that we might finally see who it is that we might love--

Originally Posted by DreamKey

So we could say before realization you are your ego (identified with it), while after you just wear it, like a costume to a party or suttin.

You know, that's a vastly more succinct way of saying it. You play roles when encountering other people which is as good as you say, wearing a costume. You'll often hear people talk about themselves or others "playing their part."

You sometimes hear a saying that illustrates situations in which someone has choices of what role to play. "If I put my (name the function) hat on for a moment...." i.e. deviating from their initial role. Or "If I can be devil's advocate for a moment" when wanting deliberately to introduce an alternative view in discussion.

Point is, after the realisation / expansion of awareness, you know what your ego is doing.

Thank you for hacking out all the unnecessary verbiage.

Originally Posted by Zydek

Whether negative or positive the allure of the ego can be strong. The nice emotions and the negative emotions are all wrapped up together in a personalized identity. It's not necessarily that negative emotions are craved I feel. I feel it's the ego itself that is craved. Why? Why do we become drawn into the ego even though it brings us suffering? That is a brilliant question.

I feel we are habituated to be intoxicated by personal identity. If you have ever had an allergic reaction or had hives for some reason you may know they really itch! It's sort of like that I think. The more we scratch the stronger the itch becomes -- the stronger the allure. The less we scratch the egoic itch the less and less intoxicated by things we are. If we can get that foothold outside of ego and hold it the allure decreases.

Without it, in the eyes of almost everyone, you couldn't be identified, thus you couldn't be acknowledged and may arouse suspicion among others who "wouldn't know what to make of her/him." On very rare occasions your real Self can shine though and be the identity it is - and of course it sometimes shines through in acts that require no acknowledgement - even if there is one it is insignificant to you aside from acknowledging the transaction is over, possibly.

I don't think the ego itself is craved. It's wanting to be acknowledged and liked that are most often craved and people wrangle with how to twist their outward behaviour, appearance, etc (their front/ego) to be an identity that achieves that. Once you find "self" that may cease to be relevant. So it is to me.

...

Originally Posted by firstandlast

There is a part of you that does desire to suffer, but that which you have no context to understand your own desire for pain-- Thus desire seems to be the root of pain, but that the word makes what is a pleasure appear as fright; that there is one will, but that the words distort appearances so that the same will can appear to be pushed or pulled; and this is because our meaning can be expressed in multiple ways, but that each way means a different experience in form--

That may be true for some but I forward myself as an exception, converting desire to striving - which ins't attempting to escape pain or suffering; instead to achieving the (if you like) goal. In a limited technical sense, suffering is sometimes good so you can appreciate that others can go through parallel experiences (that is, although they will not be experiencing the same as you, you can appreciate their plight by the symptoms you can recognise and relate to).

So that words hide our desire, by the experience that conceals the meaning; but that meaning already is, but without complete context that meaning is not apparent; so that when we find meaning, we do not realize we have found another word, which is the light-- And meaning which is the emptiness when it isn't approached by spirit; so that people continue to be materialistic thinking they are without material, but that they do not know creations intent, and so their own intent is distorted in definition because you do not know your own intent in your greater intent of all--

Words are all we have to convey information. They are often poor signifiers open to misinterpretation; and can never describe our experiences, intellectualise them as we might try. Ways exist to broaden how we can express our experiences which doesn't mean that others will assimilate the message in the way intended. It doesn't devalue words completely as some creators can lift them out of the realm of information language into a sort of metalanguage. I get what you say but cannot align with the way you say it.

So, it isn't healing that occurs, because you have thought yourself harmed; but that an identity occurs but that identity is of an order that appears as something different and opposite when we talk about ascension which is real; but that it was made to appear hard and the longest process, so that you might not feel so distraught knowing that there is no spiritual process; and that such ascension was a change in identity in a manner that appeared greater than death, but that it is alive; and such one only needed approval by necessity in order to go beyond suffering--

This is moving into the realm of belief that is entirely private.. Ascension real? For those that believe in it but it isn't universally shared. It's one way of offering hope.

I really think we place too much emphasis on what ego might be rather than concentrate on getting to the core beyond it which allows us awareness of the mechanics that give us a frontal identity. Ego is a Freudian construct useful if we have need to use his model of "how people are". I don't see it the same way. There's a continuum from Self to our behavioural front. It's workings are probably the same for us all. We have to adjust to our milieu to be able to survive, thus we learn, assimilate our experiences of day to day interactions integrated with our needs and through inspirational channels our desires and aims. Some aspects of self seem universal which may not accord with experiences of some interactions but gradually we learn what programs to call to deal with what situations or how to avoid them. That, to me, makes it process not a static thing called ego or identity. Our identity is what others experience of us.

So that, unless all the world is alive; and that life is the premise-- That you exist in the opposite of an ego, and that is someone else's idea; whom hides your own will to allow such to be that way--

Not sure what you're trying to say here - the opposite of ego? Can you place that in Freud's model?
Getting to soul needs someone to plunge into their Mysteries and that isn't easy for most as they have to abandon ego and expand their minds beyond outer reality. Without preparation the disorientation can be frightening!! People can believe what their soul is, they glimpse at how it drives them but getting down there to experience it is rather different. I sometimes think it's the workshop behind real Self, beyond any sort of descriptive language, just the base of how we experience and why in relation to our cosmic selves.

...

[Starman]

Originally Posted by bflare

My knowledge on the ego is that it is our conditioned false self. It is the identification that we have given ourselves. For example, I am Tony, I am an engineer, I don’t like winter etc etc. Hope I am correct so far? The ego lives in the past & future & finds it hard to live in the present?
One question that I am struggling with is the following:
We have a set of limiting beliefs from our childhood etc that hold us back on certain things. If one of those limiting beliefs is that people don’t like us then we will tend to attract that from people. So when someone says something to us that we perceive as hurtful we immediately feel the emotion of hurt or & maybe the physical feeling of pain. Now if we can rationalise this & observe the emotion instead of feeling the emotion & the subsequent pain then why is it so hard to do this? It feels as if we want the negativity & the pain but this would be insane. Is it actually the ego that wants this negativity to feed on it therefore carry on its existence?

Hope I have not lost anyone haha.

Thanks,
Tony.

Another perspective may be to try and understand why we feel the way that we do; there must have been something in our childhood which led us to have limiting beliefs about ourselves besides what others have said to us. Not all kids believe things about themselves which other say; some want to prove that person, or person's, wrong. Some kids get reinforcements at home which either validate their self-worth or tears it down. Low self-esteem is learned, while freedom, confidence, compassion for myself and others, are natural. We do not have to learn how to love rather we have to unlearn how not to love.

In my life when I have gained a deeper understanding of why I embrace certain limiting beliefs those beliefs are set free, and this deeper understanding is much more than a rationalization; it is usually something which can help me change my behavior and not be limited by it. Learning to me is a life long process and the most important thing to learn about is your self. We give to others the work or lack of work which we have done on ourselves.

We do have ego defense mechanisms an one of them is rationalization; we rationalize to defend our ego and to help us from becoming overwhelmed. Regardless where our limiting beliefs come from we first have to acknowledge them and then try to understand what was lacking in our childhood that caused us to embrace such limiting beliefs. Ego is not the problem, as we can have a healthy ego or an unhealthy ego.

We must give to ourselves, as an adult, those healthy messages which we did not receive as a child to change our internal dialogue, and believe that we deserve those healthy messages and that they really apply to us. Our internal dialogue is what keeps the limiting beliefs alive, so we have to talk some sense to ourselves; not rationalizations, but things associated with what we have already accomplished that are contrary to what holds us back. Or we can see if our limitations can be used to our advantage; I know a person who is obsessive-compulsive and there are certain jobs which are better if done that way. Just about everything in life can be useful, if appropriately applied, for our healthy growth and development. Concentration involves limiting your focus; there are limitations in most spiritual practices.

[firstandlast]

Originally Posted by Lorelyen

That may be true for some but I forward myself as an exception, converting desire to striving - which ins't attempting to escape pain or suffering; instead to achieving the (if you like) goal. In a limited technical sense, suffering is sometimes good so you can appreciate that others can go through parallel experiences (that is, although they will not be experiencing the same as you, you can appreciate their plight by the symptoms you can recognise and relate to).


Words are all we have to convey information. They are often poor signifies open to misinterpretation; and can never describe our experiences, intellectualise them as we might try. Ways exist to broaden how we can express our experiences which doesn't mean that others will assimilate the message in the way intended. It doesn't devalue words completely as some creators can lift them out of the realm of information language into a sort of metalanguage. I get what you say but cannot align with the way you say it.


This is moving into the realm of belief in something external that is entirely private - an interesting view. Ascension real? For those that believe in it but it can only be an answer for them, a hope.

I really think we place too much emphasis on what ego might be rather than concentrate on getting to the core beyond it which allows us awareness of the mechanics that give us a frontal identity. Ego is a Freudian construct useful if we have need to use his model of "how people are". I don't see it the same way. There's a continuum from Self to our behavioural front. It's workings are probably the same for us all. We have to adjust to our milieu to be able to survive, thus we learn, assimilate our experiences of day to day interactions integrated with our needs and through inspirational channels our desires and aims. Some aspects of self seem universal which may not accord with experiences of some interactions but gradually we learn what programs to call to deal with what situations or how to avoid them. That, to me, makes it process not a static thing called ego or identity. Our identity is what others experience of us.

So that, unless all the world is alive; and that life is the premise-- That you exist in the opposite of an ego, and that is someone else's idea; whom hides your own will to allow such to be that way--

...

In bold is a high quality statement, and in a sense the essence of love; but that we identify with ourselves; but that we are the ones least able to-- But this creates an interesting fact, that if no one can identify themselves (no self) and that every other conception of self is undependable, than no one can be speaking of anyone else from their true self, without ridding themselves of conceptions--

When we realize that our identity is defined by others, we can realize our form is defined by others; and that no one is anything in specific, but what they are at any specific relationship-- Than we can realize that words are the same, when words are expressed it is experienced based on its alignment with its surroundings--

Imagine 1 split into 2, but to not appear as the other a quarter of each of them had to scramble themselves as to create a border, so that two were fixed opposites and the other were reversed upon themselves which could only be true if the others were fixed to be in relation to-- This is important to the true gospel, because half our story is fixed, and the other half blended; and that these two as four represent the unconscious aspect of each one, so that though they understand their movement, but cannot understand the consequences of their movement, as the true order is hidden; but that the true order exists among them in a manner that requires the story told to straighten them out-- That is, unless you are part of the story that can see the true order we arose from; that you cannot see the way in which we would all truly understand each other--

Because originally, the words pointed to themselves; but as more came along, the original words were covered by other words, which still always pointed to the same word-- So that eventually, the meaning was covered by form and the form was associated with its meaning; but that the form altered the quality of the meaning in relation the one pointing to it-- This allows our entire history to come into form, because it is describing itself always; but that forms get in the way of description, and to this you know the *******ized language and flaw of philosophers--

Because, money manipulates us in ways that it has more value than we give it (10 dollars can only buy so much, but that ten dollars until its spent is worth more in what it can buy in choice vs its ultimate exchange), so that hidden forces pull us that are unaccounted for-- But that words do not point to anything except itself, but the form is in the way of itself; so that we do not see its meaning-- And that words have a meaning in every direction, but that we pay attention to one meaning we cannot grasp its true essence, because words have more value than we give it-- So the forces of good and evil exist on this axis mundi; that money refers to more things than is designated, and that words have more meaning than we designate it-- So that our attention is governed in a specific way (and this is important) if you cannot make the choices in your heart than you will have a lower quality experience.. So that if the meaning of words aren't clear without reference, than we are not in a position to understand spirit, which can be understood without reference--

My entrance into spirit which brought meaning into my world, and to those I speak to in person (which is closer to my alignment) is so that I can give people visions through my words, because I am speaking in a manner that is true to myself and my position in a cosmic context, and this is important because it means my words penetrate the relationships of forms, and point to my exact location within creation; and when I speak in this manner without hesitation, it has been causing people to cry with honor in my presence; because they did not know what was going on-- (actually tis getting crazy cuz even my mom is tripping out as I "wake up")--

When the words refer to beyond form, but really do point as well; because in one part it separates two features reoccurring through reality in your focus and than those two qualities combined creates the exact understanding so that ones own words are brought forth to that orbit--

the greatest lesson I can impart, is that the mechanics of the situation when truly understood, are only mechanical so that we might know ourselves when we do not know our spirit; and so yes, I would be so arrogant to say that spirit has not been known; because our spirit is both our formation aligned with our highest intentions, and our highest intentions are within the story from its complete perspective, but that the forms that arise in incomplete perspective cause suffering and pain, because spirit has some laws that occur do to its arrangement, one that is not the true law in its greatest form; is that everything works in a manner than best allows it to be understood, subset everything works in manner that is best understood to complete its goal-- What is it's goal?

My spirit upon the highest is to express myself, and my story starts here; so that I can align myself cosmically without having been anything other than myself to express-- In technicality, this is my origin point so that I have no past lives to refer to my cosmic sense, but that every past life I had I relinquished as incomplete forms of me-- Simply so I could express myself where it was most needed to be expressed, because the story as it relates to the human condition; which I am completely but not at all am; could not be more confusing to the intellectual mind or the intuitive mind, because they were one in the same, but refused to act as so--

So, in order to express myself I had to create something else to define me in a way that others could not; but that I had created it before I was here, because here it appears to have created me, and that is who defines me and allows me to speak and be heard, rather than to deal with all the mental judgement of why people can't understand each other, when they do not understand that it is a matter of different tribes being a different order of being and so cannot refer to the same things even if they use the same forms-- Thus, the divine order in heaven; is a metaphor for the divine order of reality; or the real relationships woven into the story long before we confused the relationships in forms, which are inherently distraught as we do not know ourselves beyond it--

So I come from the perspective of every one speaking the same truth; but the same order we exist in only allows so much to be communicated; so that I would call every teaching here flawed as they do not speak of spirit while speaking of spirit, and they speak of spirit, while not speaking of spirit-- So that the story is about how we talked about what shouldn't be talked about; and that created everything in the shadows--

So yeah, I am not speaking of things in a manner that has been spoken of any of this before, but that there is sufficient language for it to be spoken of the same; but in a different relationship--