Is the ego really separate from anything?

Originally Posted by The Dude

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?

I haven't read too much of Eckhart Tolle (I actually had no idea who/what ET was until someone else said so)

But the little I have read of him, I like and agree with.

I suspect the situation is the bolded part above.

The problem with a forum like this is that people are so disparate in their understanding and use of the word, plus people are at different levels of realization.

So it'll be hard for you to see any consensus, so to speak.

JL

Best way I understand ego is when I have had past life experiences where my past life ego, personality is strong in it's identification of itself and the experiences from that life that has mold the ego, but underneath it all there are common traits, the same spirit coming through.

Originally Posted by The Dude

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?

If you're really going to understand the go then you have to go to either Jung or Freud, they're the ones that coined the word and its definitions in the first place. What all this "We are not our True Selves" has less to do with Spirituality and more to do with dissociative disorders. The concept of 'True Self' is actually something that comes from the ego itself, and more specifically the physiological subsystems that chunter around inside people's skulls.



The ego doesn't exacerbate suffering, what exacerbates suffering is what's known in psychology as cognitive behaviour - which is one of the 'creators' of perceptual reality. People suffer because they either can't or won't deal with or accept what Life throws at them. Thinking that the ego is separate is destructive cognitive behaviour that leads to people dissociating with themselves and associating with something Spiritual - "We are not our True Selves." Escapism and denial posing as Spirituality. The ego is an individuated aspect of the True Self, if you subscribe to that line of belief. It's a singularity of consciousness manifested into this plane of existence that is perceptually separate - not actually. That's the whole point.



As to what the ego is or not, that depends on your choice of Freudian or Jungian model. Jung said that the ego is "A sense of I am" and I think everybody has one of those. The 'real' ego-death occurs when the ego 'collapses' into the self and the person becomes completely dysfunctional, usually after a sever traumatic experience. Psychologtically, if you don't have an ego you're not functional enough to log into the forms. In Spirituality there is no ego, it's actually Latin for 'I' so the ancients wouldn't have used the word anyway because it hadn't been invented. The Spiritual 'equivalents' are either Ahamkara - which is what Jung based his model of the ego on - or Maya or the false self of perceptual/created reality. Either of those makes sense of where you're going with this I think.



Really, the term True Self isn't that Spiritual because 'ultimately' there is no Self/self, the 'ultimate' would be God/Creator......

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

If you're really going to understand the go then you have to go to either Jung or Freud, they're the ones that coined the word and its definitions in the first place. What all this "We are not our True Selves" has less to do with Spirituality and more to do with dissociative disorders. The concept of 'True Self' is actually something that comes from the ego itself, and more specifically the physiological subsystems that chunter around inside people's skulls.

The ego doesn't exacerbate suffering, what exacerbates suffering is what's known in psychology as cognitive behaviour - which is one of the 'creators' of perceptual reality. People suffer because they either can't or won't deal with or accept what Life throws at them. Thinking that the ego is separate is destructive cognitive behaviour that leads to people dissociating with themselves and associating with something Spiritual - "We are not our True Selves." Escapism and denial posing as Spirituality. The ego is an individuated aspect of the True Self, if you subscribe to that line of belief. It's a singularity of consciousness manifested into this plane of existence that is perceptually separate - not actually. That's the whole point.

As to what the ego is or not, that depends on your choice of Freudian or Jungian model. Jung said that the ego is "A sense of I am" and I think everybody has one of those. The 'real' ego-death occurs when the ego 'collapses' into the self and the person becomes completely dysfunctional, usually after a sever traumatic experience. Psychologtically, if you don't have an ego you're not functional enough to log into the forms. In Spirituality there is no ego, it's actually Latin for 'I' so the ancients wouldn't have used the word anyway because it hadn't been invented. The Spiritual 'equivalents' are either Ahamkara - which is what Jung based his model of the ego on - or Maya or the false self of perceptual/created reality. Either of those makes sense of where you're going with this I think.

Really, the term True Self isn't that Spiritual because 'ultimately' there is no Self/self, the 'ultimate' would be God/Creator......

Or we can just ignore Jung and Freud and still discuss the ego according to our own definitions.

Peace

Originally Posted by Greenslade

If you're really going to understand the go then you have to go to either Jung or Freud,

Perhaps as a pyschology student, but definitely not - and least of all for spiritual purposes.

Peace,

JL

[JustBe]

Originally Posted by iamthat

Or we can just ignore Jung and Freud and still discuss the ego according to our own definitions.

Peace

Sometimes you can find words through others that describe how your experience fits. Sometimes as an experiencer, I’m conscious I sometimes can’t find words for what is, steps in an unfolding process in myself that are so unique to me, it’s difficult to convey through that uniqueness.

But then..

I find pieces through others that help define my own experience.

In sharing this, I’m aware that in the end, I can find the words through ‘feeling’ that become the recreation from all that. And it is through feeling that regardless of words, the relating will be forthcoming.

Where as if I am ‘dead set’ on holding the words and system I am borrowing from, there is the potential to miss that deeper interconnectedness, that is unique to each of us.

What often ensues in these sorts of discoveries, of self relating through this means, is ‘I’m right’ ‘I know’ ..’this teaching is right’ ‘this meaning is right’ ..

Where as in myself everything is momentary, held lightly, related too, only through the stream I’m passing through at any given time and process.

I think sometimes when we assert ‘we know’ because the discovery is at times profound to the healing space in us, we can latch onto the means in which supported us. The ego likes to think it knows, it likes to think it has a ‘firm grip’ on what it knows. What I’ve sensed in feeling in this way, is that this feeds feelings being overlooked in that type of ‘holding’.

As I view tools now, they are just tools supporting, your becoming a piece of them as yourself ‘aware’ ..

In my case, the tools as an experiencer, are a means to become the tool..

[JustBe]

Originally Posted by lemex

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.

Your welcome.

I’ve read ET’s books about twenty years ago and I suppose at the time there was something within them resonated in me and preparing me for more experience of my own. It wasn’t long after reading them I had a deeper awakening process, where I had to surrender to some tightly held unconscious fear. At that time the false love was all tied into a greater ball contained. So the unravelling was clearing out many of my conditioned fear based ideas about love and fear. I see both through clear eyes now, more directly.

Many of our so called negative ego drivers, are there to recognise what we feel, no matter what those feelings are. Fear based judgement has its roots of harm towards itself, within itself, so it makes sense to honour yourself as deep as those roots in self loving ways.

[inavalan]

@justbe: Your signature ("Silence speaks with power") made me wonder "What is a phrase that combines two words with opposite meanings". google says:

The term you're looking for is oxymoron, which comes from a Greek word whose literal translation is 'pointedly foolish'. An oxymoron is a figure of speech in which two apparently contradictory terms appear together. Examples include a deafening silence, harmonious discord, an open secret, and the living dead.

I think there might be a less pejorative name too.

Surely, I understand that you used it to make a special point.

[Rah nam]

If we look at the personality as the Body/Mind/Spirit complex and we are Spirit, then what is the body mind complex?
To me that is the Ego, were the body is part of the planetary consciousness, and the mind is simply an artificially created construct. We as spirits us it for our experience, and we us it on a level we are ready for.

[JustBe]

Originally Posted by inavalan

@justbe: Your signature ("Silence speaks with power") made me wonder "What is a phrase that combines two words with opposite meanings". google says:

The term you're looking for is oxymoron, which comes from a Greek word whose literal translation is 'pointedly foolish'. An oxymoron is a figure of speech in which two apparently contradictory terms appear together. Examples include a deafening silence, harmonious discord, an open secret, and the living dead.

I think there might be a less pejorative name too.



Surely, I understand that you used it to make a special point.

Wonder is great..

It’s much better than an answer or question for that matter.

I saw no contradiction when I chose it. The meaning arose from this in me..

—from silence births joy of the true self, filled with wonder, wisdom, love, compassion and kindness. To speak from that birthed silence, is power, as energy, as creation, as infinite possibilities, as clarity, as groundedness, as steadfastness, as balanced being..as freedom (the list could go on and on, but I won’t bore you)