Is the ego really separate from anything?

[awesomeoneness]

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?

The ego is not "really" separate, but it believes in the illusion of separation and that belief makes it seem real to the ego.

The ego, simply put, is the unconscious aspect of the soul.

In other words, it is the soul (higher-self) in its lower vibration.

That vibrational gap is what the ego (lower-self) thinks and feels separate from its higher-self.

But in reality, they are the same self.

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

I understand what you are saying.

Some people collect guns and never fire them.
Some people use them for sport such as target practicing.
Some people use them for protection.
Some people use them to put food on the table.

One time I was far, far, far away from civilization in Asia.
What I saw was two young men, with some game, carrying cap and ball rifles!
I was impressed.

Eggsactly B.J.

It's never been about the gun itself it's about the peep that pulls the trigger ..

The ego in itself is likened to a gun simply being a gun, the ego simply is, what is expressed via the ego has to do with intent behind the expression .


x daz x

[Jyotir]

Unfortunately, the contemporary, conventional, popular, social, psychological, and scientific (i.e. neurological) definitions and understandings of ego are hopelessly inadequate for real spiritual practice, as they are both formed and utilized within a restricted context that does not recognize, know, admit, or account for - nor have a necessity for higher principles, truth, and importantly, direct experience of consciousness which establishes vastly greater perspective, meaning, and significance, which for genuine spiritual work greatly exceeds the purview and capacity of the presumed objectively “professional” science based inquiry of any kind.

As evidenced by discussion here, it seems that most people cannot conceive or imagine a gnostic differentiation within and conscious of a unitary multiplicity without the intercession, mediation, and actual limitation by a separative ego sense, e.g. that there is merely “good” ego and “bad” ego, which is irrelevant in the context of spiritual work even if not for social work or psychotherapy - as it is still separative, not unitary, not gnostic - no matter how good, altruistic, moral, ethical, or socially efficacious. It is, represents, perceives, and acts as if separate from the All Being, One Self. That is its means and function, but that is still a restriction of consciousness in and through an exclusive individuality - not as a differentiation that is fully conscious of its identity as all-Being, which is its salient falsehood, whether “good”, “bad”, “healthy” or “unhealthy”. In terms of spiritual work, ego is always “unhealthy” by definition because its very nature is restrictive to progressive truth, even if its development was for a time was a necessary expedient to an inexorable evolution.

For those interested in a definitive spiritual pov vs. the endless play of speculative, conventional, and indeterminate opinion on the topic of ego and its import to their own spiritual work, I suggest for possible further edification:

Sri Aurobindo’s “The Synthesis of Yoga”, Vol 23-24 (see my signature for the link) - the entire text is recommended as an aid to practice within to any tradition, but in particular,
Part IV, The Yoga of Self-Perfection;
Chapter IV, The Perfection of the Mental Being

…in which this issue of the ego and its relation to spiritual development within a larger context is discussed, particularly the last 6 pages, although the cited chapter is only 11 pages long; as well, the topic of ego appears and is clarified throughout the entire text, as it is a major issue in any spiritual practice that requires as indispensable, great clarity.

Other than that contribution, there doesn’t seem to be much to add to the discussion that hasn’t already been said, not only in this thread, but in many others with the same content - ludicrous digression on gun control not withstanding! - with probable similar outcome.

~ J

Originally Posted by Jyotir

Unfortunately, the contemporary, conventional, popular, social, psychological, and scientific (i.e. neurological) definitions and understandings of ego are hopelessly inadequate for real spiritual practice, as they are both formed and utilized within a restricted context that does not recognize, know, admit, or account for - nor have a necessity for higher principles, truth, and importantly, direct experience of consciousness which establishes vastly greater perspective, meaning, and significance, which for genuine spiritual work greatly exceeds the purview and capacity of the presumed objectively “professional” science based inquiry of any kind.

That would be the material reductionist view, correct? The same view that posits consciousness is an emergent quality of the brain's complexity.

[Jyotir]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

That would be the material reductionist view, correct? The same view that posits consciousness is an emergent quality of the brain's complexity.

Hi JASG,

That would be the most obvious or extreme proponent of such orientation*, although it is clear from this very thread (and others) that those even of a spiritual orientation who are actively aspiring and practicing, often have an incorrect definition, conception, understanding, etc. of the construct....for spiritual purposes.


* that consciousness derives exclusively from chemical and electrical activity in the brain of an exclusively separate physical body e.g., materialism.
The spiritual pov presumes that consciousness is synonymous with all existence and proceeds from there, for instance that ego is simply a restricted cognition within the all-consciousness.


~ J

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by Jyotir

Unfortunately, the contemporary, conventional, popular, social, psychological, and scientific (i.e. neurological) definitions and understandings of ego are hopelessly inadequate for real spiritual practice, as they are both formed and utilized within a restricted context that does not recognize, know, admit, or account for - nor have a necessity for higher principles, truth, and importantly, direct experience of consciousness which establishes vastly greater perspective, meaning, and significance, which for genuine spiritual work greatly exceeds the purview and capacity of the presumed objectively “professional” science based inquiry of any kind.

As evidenced by discussion here, it seems that most people cannot conceive or imagine a gnostic differentiation within and conscious of a unitary multiplicity without the intercession, mediation, and actual limitation by a separative ego sense, e.g. that there is merely “good” ego and “bad” ego, which is irrelevant in the context of spiritual work even if not for social work or psychotherapy - as it is still separative, not unitary, not gnostic - no matter how good, altruistic, moral, ethical, or socially efficacious. It is, represents, perceives, and acts as if separate from the All Being, One Self. That is its means and function, but that is still a restriction of consciousness in and through an exclusive individuality - not as a differentiation that is fully conscious of its identity as all-Being, which is its salient falsehood, whether “good”, “bad”, “healthy” or “unhealthy”. In terms of spiritual work, ego is always “unhealthy” by definition because its very nature is restrictive to progressive truth, even if its development was for a time was a necessary expedient to an inexorable evolution.

For those interested in a definitive spiritual pov vs. the endless play of speculative, conventional, and indeterminate opinion on the topic of ego and its import to their own spiritual work, I suggest for possible further edification:

Sri Aurobindo’s “The Synthesis of Yoga”, Vol 23-24 (see my signature for the link) - the entire text is recommended as an aid to practice within to any tradition, but in particular,
Part IV, The Yoga of Self-Perfection;
Chapter IV, The Perfection of the Mental Being

…in which this issue of the ego and its relation to spiritual development within a larger context is discussed, particularly the last 6 pages, although the cited chapter is only 11 pages long; as well, the topic of ego appears and is clarified throughout the entire text, as it is a major issue in any spiritual practice that requires as indispensable, great clarity.

Other than that contribution, there doesn’t seem to be much to add to the discussion that hasn’t already been said, not only in this thread, but in many others with the same content - ludicrous digression on gun control not withstanding! - with probable similar outcome.

~ J

We have only touched a little bit about the Ego.........
and never mentioned once the ID nor the Super Ego which go hand in hand with discussions about the Ego.

[Jyotir]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

We have only touched a little bit about the Ego.........
and never mentioned once the ID nor the Super Ego which go hand in hand with discussions about the Ego.

HaHa so true BJ,

As intimated in the post you just quoted, you'd better rush right over to a site devoted to discussion of Freudian psychology!

~ J

Originally Posted by Jyotir

Hi JASG,

That would be the most obvious or extreme proponent of such orientation*, although it is clear from this very thread (and others) that those even of a spiritual orientation who are actively aspiring and practicing, often have an incorrect definition, conception, understanding, etc. of the construct....for spiritual purposes.


* that consciousness derives exclusively from chemical and electrical activity in the brain of an exclusively separate physical body e.g., materialism.
The spiritual pov presumes that consciousness is synonymous with all existence and proceeds from there, for instance that ego is simply a restricted cognition within the all-consciousness.


~ J

When I have time I'll check out Sri Aurobindo’s “The Synthesis of Yoga”. I'm assuming he's coming at it from the Samkhya view. That is buddhi, ahamkara and manas.

I'm thinking Sri Aurobindo’s discussion will be something along this line of thought..

https://youtu.be/e9uBaJEKgOw?t=1369

[lemex]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

We have only touched a little bit about the Ego.........
and never mentioned once the ID nor the Super Ego which go hand in hand with discussions about the Ego.

Super ego does not go hand in hand, nothing more then a logic that supports separation. It's just regular old ego.

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by Jyotir

HaHa so true BJ,

As intimated in the post you just quoted, you'd better rush right over to a site devoted to discussion of Freudian psychology!

~ J

If a person wants to talk about the Ego, do they search the Buddhist scriptures for an answer or would they go to the place where the word was coined?