Is the ego really separate from anything?
 

I read a lot of ET and he talks about the ego as being something separate from our true selves aka soul. I've read enough of him at this point that I realize he sort of contradicts himself. If separateness is just a concept of the mind then there really is no separation between ego and our true selves. However, I've never heard him mention this. I realize that spoken language is limited in conveying truth and that maybe he is just trying to help in a way that many people can understand. However, thinking about the ego as something separate may exacerbate suffering. Perhaps trying to understand things through language is impossible and it's only something that can be experienced in the present moment. Thoughts? :wink:

Ego is a mental construct we use to describe the set of beliefs we hold about our selves, or who we perceive ourselves to be, it isn't real it doesn't exist so I personally think it's seperate until you make it a part.

BlackBerry and mulberry
Is not sharp walls

That's funny ... Your post reminds of seinfeld :smile:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EF4m4h15qEA

Not sure why you say it doesn't exist, then that it is separate ... Isn't that a contradiction?

I disclose that I don't like Tolle, if it is he whom you're calling ET.

That "true self a.k.a. soul" is a point of awareness; it knows, doesn't rationalize. Depending on where it focuses (projects) it can be an ego (the one that rationalizes) when awake, a dream-self while dreaming, an inner-self when alive and are oriented toward the non-physical, an entity while focused in the non-physical between incarnations, a gestalt on a higher level.

Not sure why you're saying "thinking about the ego as something separate may exacerbate suffering".

Suffering is caused by our innate ignorance, exacerbated by being raised and educated by a misguided society. When one realizes what he is, and why he is here (to learn to create whatever he consciously wants) suffering will disappear, and his evolvement progression will greatly accelerate.

There are lots of opinions on the term “ego,” what is it, how it works, etc. Some will look at it from a “spiritual” point of view, some will look at it from a psychological point of view, and there are a lot of other paradigms, or models, that people use to construct or deconstruct what we call “ego.”

Mostly it is those with a Freudian or Neo-Freudian orientation that will refer to ego as a concrete entity. Freudian psychology dominates the thinking of most people in this world, even those who know nothing about Freudian concepts will use Freudian terminology.

I used to teach university psychology classes and I taught different schools of psychological thought, prior to that I worked in the mental health field and my approach to mental health was eclectic; meaning I used a lot of different therapeutic approaches, although I had to defer to the American Psychiatric Association diagnostic manual in order to get paid.

That diagnostic manual has its roots in Freudian psychology. Although psychology has many schools of thought, each with their own model of the human psyche. Psyche is the Greek word for “soul.” This is where the nexus between psychology and spirituality meet; in the descriptive terminology that is commonly used..

Nonetheless, there are psychological schools of thought that do not believe in the concept of ego, or they believe that ego is just a mental construct and not a real thing. The classic Freudian paradigm is that ego meditates between our higher, or greater, and our lower, sublime consciousness.

The term “consciousness” has come to mean a spiritual reference for many; again a nexus. As I said there are lots of opinions, even from professionals on this. Add to this that there is Buddhist psychology, Esoteric psychology, and other perspectives that are not in the mainstream of thinking.

Spirituality has latched onto the concept of ego in a furious way. But most do not understand that concepts are mental constructs which take place in our mind. In my opinion, if you believe in something called “ego,” then you can decide whether it is separate or not. But if you don’t believe in the concept of ego, then whether it is separate or not is a non-issue.

Hey ..

There's a lot of talk about peeps saying I am not the ego, I am not my thoughts, I am not the mind - body etc ..

These actual statements are misconceived because there was never the thought that one can be solely the mind, the thought, the ego ..

There is what you are that is of the mind that can entertain a thought of oneself (ego) .

There is nothing that is not what you are but self aspects no longer are, when what you are no longer is self aware ..


x daz x

True self thrives on love and intuition, where as ego functions on fear and judgment. That’s my experience at least. It’s a driver that drives one way or another based on healthy or unhealthy attachments. It’s a ‘protector’ that will protect itself caught in fear based thinking, fear based judgements. In this view it could well be likened to an unhealthy attachment. It creates a ‘separation’ in this way of being, from the true self. It creates its own division, by maintaining its feed.

I’d be more inclined to see it as the ‘controller’ and so once you’ve let go of control, released the containment of Fear and judgement, there is no longer a conditioned mind dictator, but rather self love and intuition that spontaneously arises moment to moment. In this way of being, in your true self, you can through detachment, not engage in mind games with yourself. Your aware of yourself beyond that conditioned controlling fear based thinking. Your ego in this view becomes nothing more than a driver that takes back seat to the true self and it’s essence. Your ego fuels the game you play with yourself, your conditioned mind. When there is no fuel, no controller, it becomes a good friend, carefree and contented..hehe

Depending on where one is open and looking there is another view that takes it further. We are not this mind, body or ego. And this too is true. We are in this view a timeless pool of possibilities. So as I see myself, as everything, I am open to and aware of, I see myself not as all this, but rather through all this aware of what the potential of myself in this way can create and be.

Thank you just. My understanding is the perspective when he speaks of ego is represented in terms (mentioning) of fear, anger, hate and programing, negativity, even conditioning in relation to love and to be aware of it. I'd be very surprised if ET did not say the same thing I know I agree the self thrives on love and need of. I would imagine there could also be false love if one goes deeper in what they feel. There is a biological self for sure and I imagine ET thinks self goes deeper then what it says. Ego is a barrier and one should not act on ego, ie negativity.