Is it possible to not have an ego?

[Moonglow]

Hello,

What creates in the mind whether one has to be this or that?

What creates an identity or not of a self?

If looking to not having an "ego", this to me is just another exploration with in an aspect of the self.

Spiritually if identified that in essence one is not just a self, but much more then would "ego" even be a thing to bother with?

In other words if it is realized one is being and in this it includes everything one is, then "ego" would just be a part of this, IMO.

What prompts one to express oneself? If no ego would venture to say one would not talk about it, as much as one would simply live it. Knowing one is a part of it, interacts with it, and this physical existence is temporary. But none of this is not a part of being/existing.

The thoughts are allowed to just come and go. Unless held onto for whatever reason, they are temporary and change. If thinking about "ego, then it will be there in whatever way identified. If not, still there in what it may represent, but not the focus anymore.

Suppose, this maybe what some of teachings are pointing at. To not try, but be.
To not do away with, but let it come and go. To do what one is able to. Letting it flow with in, without, and through oneself.

Noticing and focusing my thoughts, is for me a process. But, then again, so is every growing, developing, and living stage of life.

I am just a being, a person doing what I can to live this life.

[tommylama]

Originally Posted by Moonglow

Hello,

What creates in the mind whether one has to be this or that?

What creates an identity or not of a self?

If looking to not having an "ego", this to me is just another exploration with in an aspect of the self.

Spiritually if identified that in essence one is not just a self, but much more then would "ego" even be a thing to bother with?

In other words if it is realized one is being and in this it includes everything one is, then "ego" would just be a part of this, IMO.

What prompts one to express oneself? If no ego would venture to say one would not talk about it, as much as one would simply live it. Knowing one is a part of it, interacts with it, and this physical existence is temporary. But none of this is not a part of being/existing.

The thoughts are allowed to just come and go. Unless held onto for whatever reason, they are temporary and change. If thinking about "ego, then it will be there in whatever way identified. If not, still there in what it may represent, but not the focus anymore.

Suppose, this maybe what some of teachings are pointing at. To not try, but be.
To not do away with, but let it come and go. To do what one is able to. Letting it flow with in, without, and through oneself.

Noticing and focusing my thoughts, is for me a process. But, then again, so is every growing, developing, and living stage of life.

I am just a being, a person doing what I can to live this life.

There is no cosmic law which states that an individual must live a selfless life. There are cosmic laws, however, which reward selflessness and punish selfishness. The Plan is for all consciousnesses to come to the realization that there is only one self. We are all the same self. If we believed this truth, we would act lovingly to all we meet. Love generates cosmic reward. But, unfortunately, this is not common knowledge. Hatred abounds in this world, and it is rooted in each one of us trying to maintain our own individuality at the expense of others. It is "dog eat dog" and this interferes with the Plan of unity. Our separated ego is directly responsible for all of the suffering we experience. When we act as if we are better than someone else, no matter who that other person is or what that other person has done or not done, we are engaging in the sin of separation. There will be consequences and they won't be good. It is hard to embrace everyone as a brother or sister when you take into account the despicable behaviors of certain people. This is our challenge on the Path of Liberation. How do we love the undesirables? The only answer is that love does not have a procedure or a script to follow. Love is recognizing the divine in someone. No matter what their rap sheet might look like. The only way to reach this measure of love is to relinquish your separated ego. This ego can only love itself and it thinks it is better than others. That's a dangerous way to be when the Lords of Karma are watching. Oh, by the way, They are always watching and not a single thought that passes through your mind goes undetected. So if every thought, word and deed we perform is going to have consequences and possibly carry a punishment of suffering, wouldn't it make more sense to avoid the pain and just love people?

[Tomma]

Originally Posted by tommylama

We are all the same self. If we believed this truth, we would act lovingly to all we meet.

This assumes that everyone acts lovingly towards themselves, and I don't think everyone does. In fact very few people do.

[SerendipityLizard]

What is ego?

There’s a personality, past memories, beliefs, thoughts, emotions and many more appearing. But do they necessarily combine into a single idea of “self”? An ego is when you combine all of these into an assumption of a coherent story — when many of the connections are flawed and assumed.

Not to say that stories aren’t useful as simplifcations to understand and communicate your life. Just be knowledgable that it isn’t a category that divides something with something else.

[SerendipityLizard]

Originally Posted by Tomma

This assumes that everyone acts lovingly towards themselves, and I don't think everyone does. In fact very few people do.

But those few people who do still love at least one other person, right? Without some kind of connection, many of us can’t function at all in society. To see everyone as yourself, also means that you know those you love to be yourself as well.

People who don’t have any emotional connection though — they’re still in love with a certain false image of themselves or others. They may chase for greed, fame or success, but this is still a kind of yearning for something.

Once they see people they admire in having this success as just being as human as them, they respect them more. I used to be someone like this myself, but I’ve learned quite a lot through the journey of life. :) .

[Moonglow]

Originally Posted by tommylama

There is no cosmic law which states that an individual must live a selfless life. There are cosmic laws, however, which reward selflessness and punish selfishness. The Plan is for all consciousnesses to come to the realization that there is only one self. We are all the same self. If we believed this truth, we would act lovingly to all we meet. Love generates cosmic reward. But, unfortunately, this is not common knowledge. Hatred abounds in this world, and it is rooted in each one of us trying to maintain our own individuality at the expense of others. It is "dog eat dog" and this interferes with the Plan of unity. Our separated ego is directly responsible for all of the suffering we experience. When we act as if we are better than someone else, no matter who that other person is or what that other person has done or not done, we are engaging in the sin of separation. There will be consequences and they won't be good. It is hard to embrace everyone as a brother or sister when you take into account the despicable behaviors of certain people. This is our challenge on the Path of Liberation. How do we love the undesirables? The only answer is that love does not have a procedure or a script to follow. Love is recognizing the divine in someone. No matter what their rap sheet might look like. The only way to reach this measure of love is to relinquish your separated ego. This ego can only love itself and it thinks it is better than others. That's a dangerous way to be when the Lords of Karma are watching. Oh, by the way, They are always watching and not a single thought that passes through your mind goes undetected. So if every thought, word and deed we perform is going to have consequences and possibly carry a punishment of suffering, wouldn't it make more sense to avoid the pain and just love people?

Hi Tommylama,

Can agree when ones thoughts and actions lead to division, then conflicts and suffering can arise.

Find it is more beneficial to be loving and understanding towards each other.

To me, diversity and differences does not have to lead into divisions.

It comes to me as more cause and effect then "ego" itself. I don't blame ego, I take into account what occurs or how one may act and take it from there.

If using "ego" as a reference point for having self identity, then feel most have some form of this. Can agree that self entitlement and desire to control can lead to selfish behavior that is harmful.

But, is it just about us humans? If thought to be, isn't this in a way egotistical?
For me, influenced not just by others or my thoughts, but by what arises and occurs around me and living upon this Earth. Most of which has really nothing to do with my ego. Where ego (identifying and perception) may step in is in how I may adapt, react, respond, or understand what occurred or arises.

This for me is an on going process. For nothing is stagnant and changes occur.

These are just my thoughts at the moment on this.
In no way intending to dismiss what you share or saying it is wrong.
It is your insight upon this and appreciate you taking the time to present it.

Guess, it is just ego is not an issue with me. Being myself is not an issue with me. I may in some ways identify with self, and in other ways realize it is not all there is to it. For I do not know all there is to it.

I hope am being understood. Can relate that there is work for us to do in order to overcome and heal the divisions that are created. Yes, love and compassion opens the heart and ego or not feel the heart is a good guide to go by.

Thank you

[tommylama]

I think it is easy to err when discussing the ego. Each of us has two egos, but the higher ego is one we all share. The lower ego is what separates us from everyone. It gives us our separated identity. In time, the separation must go away, because there is only unity in the cosmos. A human, who enjoys a separated ego, must travel on the path which leads to liberation from that separation. The crucifixion in the life of Jesus is really intended to show the humans that a crucifixion awaits each one of them. This is what is meant when He said "I am the way," or "Pick up your cross and follow me," or "If you don't pick up your cross you are not worthy of me." The crucifixion is the death of the separated self, which I refer to as the ego. At the end of the path of liberation, each human loses the lower ego, but gains the realization and the consciousness of the true EGO, or higher self of which there is only one, which we all share. It is like we are all the same person, with our own individuality intact, but with a shared consciousness. This is what the Masters of wisdom experience as Their normal waking consciousness. It is a characteristic of the Buddhic dimension. It is what Jesus refers to when He says that "I and the Father are one." When we reach that exalted level of consciousness, unity of all beings becomes a fact in our brain awareness, not just a lovely theory that we have prior to attainment. The lower self does not want to be eliminated, and it does everything in its power to convince the human that the crucifixion should be avoided. It only stands to reason that since all of creation originated from a singularity, which our scientists have so aptly discovered, that eventually all must merge back into that unified state. This is the whole purpose of creation. Every single atom will have undergone an evolution of consciousness which took it through a mineral existence, and then a vegetable existence, an animal existence, and finally a human existence where this incredible realization of divinity ultimately takes place. In a way, the universe is becoming aware of itself over time. And at the end of time, all of the myriad entities will be aware of themselves as a single organism. Much like a human body is composed of trillions of tiny little separate life forms we know as cells. To fight the urge to merge into the One Self and to maintain one's separated identity is the only true sin. The lower self or ego is really the devil inside of us. The lower self is only capable of loving itself. When we demonstrate the ability to love others, it is an indicator that our Higher Self or Soul is awakening within. Often what we call love is not really love, hence the divorce rate in our culture. True love requires sacrifice and the lower self or ego is incapable of sacrifice. I believe that we are part animal and part angel. The animal is the lower self and it has to go away. The angel is "in love" with all the other angels, and it makes its presence known when we truly show love for others. And angels don't have carnal appetites. They are capable of light, love and selflessness. It sounds boring to the lower self, but the rewards for reaching the end of the path of liberation are unspeakably glorious.

[Starman]

Originally Posted by youngnostic

the reason why I ask is because I don't have anything in me that I can identify as an 'ego' which leads me to question: what if I don't have an ego?

There is really no such thing as “ego,” it is a theory and only a theory. Metaphysics uses the term “the Self,” while pre-Sigmund Freud people just used the term “I.” Freud made the term “ego” popular but it is not a real thing. The word “ego” was taken, by Dr. Sigmund Freud, from the Latin reference for “I.”

According to Freud’s structural model ego is the mediator between what he called “the id” and the “superego,” all which are theoretical concepts. However, I understand that the word “ego” is real for lots of people. Freudian and Neo-Freudian psychology surely treats it as though it is an actual thing. Ego psychology is a school of thought rooted in Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalysis model. But there are a number of schools of psychological thought, religions, and spiritual practices, that do not embrace the term “ego” and do not believe that there is any such thing as “ego,” Buddhism for instance does not recognize, or embrace, something called “the ego.” (see link below)

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-di...d-buddhism-ego

Most indigenous people’s, including Native Americans, do not believe in a thing called “ego.” The term ego is basically mainstream Euro-American thought. It is not a universal term, nor is it a universal concept. It is fundamentally a belief in the structure of the psyche as put forth by Sigmund Freud, and it is a widely held theoretical model of human consciousness. But I hold the belief that there is no such thing as “ego,” there is no such thing as “I.” Beyond this physical world, beyond this realm of name and form, there is no identity. No self reference; all is one.

Everything here on Earth came from everything else here on Earth; religion was a response to spirituality, medicine was a response to religion, psychiatry grew out of medicine, and psychology was a response to psychiatry. Most psychological schools of thought, and there are many, were a reaction against psychiatry. The same can be said of various religions and their denominations or sects. As well as many other things that are manifested here on Earth. Words and theories, when perpetuated, have a way of taking on a life of their own.

Originally Posted by Starman

Words and theories, when perpetuated, have a way of taking on a life of their own.

And in the Spiritual vernacular 'ego' is the very Victorian root of all evil.

[tommylama]

Originally Posted by Starman

There is really no such thing as “ego,” it is a theory and only a theory. Metaphysics uses the term “the Self,” while pre-Sigmund Freud people just used the term “I.” Freud made the term “ego” popular but it is not a real thing. The word “ego” was taken, by Dr. Sigmund Freud, from the Latin reference for “I.”

According to Freud’s structural model ego is the mediator between what he called “the id” and the “superego,” all which are theoretical concepts. However, I understand that the word “ego” is real for lots of people. Freudian and Neo-Freudian psychology surely treats it as though it is an actual thing. Ego psychology is a school of thought rooted in Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalysis model. But there are a number of schools of psychological thought, religions, and spiritual practices, that do not embrace the term “ego” and do not believe that there is any such thing as “ego,” Buddhism for instance does not recognize, or embrace, something called “the ego.” (see link below)

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-di...d-buddhism-ego

Most indigenous people’s, including Native Americans, do not believe in a thing called “ego.” The term ego is basically mainstream Euro-American thought. It is not a universal term, nor is it a universal concept. It is fundamentally a belief in the structure of the psyche as put forth by Sigmund Freud, and it is a widely held theoretical model of human consciousness. But I hold the belief that there is no such thing as “ego,” there is no such thing as “I.” Beyond this physical world, beyond this realm of name and form, there is no identity. No self reference; all is one.

Everything here on Earth came from everything else here on Earth; religion was a response to spirituality, medicine was a response to religion, psychiatry grew out of medicine, and psychology was a response to psychiatry. Most psychological schools of thought, and there are many, were a reaction against psychiatry. The same can be said of various religions and their denominations or sects. As well as many other things that are manifested here on Earth. Words and theories, when perpetuated, have a way of taking on a life of their own.

I should have footnoted my comments, because most of what I say is derived from the works of Alice A. Bailey, and Helena Blavatsky, and the Masters who used them to promulgate Their Ageless Wisdom to humanity. I have been fortunate to have been exposed to Their teachings at an early age and after more than 45 years of studying, I feel that my grasp of the fundamentals of this school of thought is adequate enough that I can help others to understand as well. The Masters have provided volumes of information which explain everything we humans need to know in order to join Them in Their lofty homes. Sigmund Freud and his ilk, while undoubtedly intelligent men, were not Masters of wisdom. I don't like to argue that what the Masters have to say must be true, because of Their status. I think the content speaks for itself in its elegant simplicity and logical structure.