Is the ego really separate from anything?

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by lemex

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

and what is your basis for that?

[lemex]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

and what is your basis for that?

You are talking about logic we apply, such things as social conditioning. When reading about super ego, it is presented as 3 separate or distinct things but it does not treat it as a flow. Metaphysics would say id ----> ego ----> super ego. This is the Triune brain model. The first 2 are not thought, there is no right or wrong, no logic, these elements are applied by the super ego. Super ego seems to always agree with the flow. The super ego does not seem to be as powerful as the ego. An example is, a criminal can justify what they do. This is an example of super ego applies. They know it is wrong but do it anyway. Super ego mirrors ego. Does super ego merely agree. *Forgot, super ego will always apply right imo.

[HITESH SHAH]

Originally Posted by Jyotir

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.

Most observations of contemporary scientific / psychological /professional practices reflect today's reality and one has to agree with it . Wrt aforesaid italics underlines comments , I have a question . Is an ego beyond individual name /form /body identification, identified and merged with Cosmic soul / God wrong / unhealthy ?

Most spiritual practices talk of killing ego. But that's just ego associated and limited with name/body/form identification . Where scholars talk / mean killing ego , they mean to break these narrow barriers of name/body/form . In technical sense ego still remains and it has transformed to sublime level and grown in divine pattern.

I think this observation of yours stems from Buddhist word 'Nirvana' (or Nibbana so to say in popular lingo) - one who removed layers of mind/body/form associations and moved to emptiness (wrt mind/body/form associations ) and feels the cosmic consciousness and feels associated with it. For the same process , Gita uses the word Brahma Nirvana ie merging with cosmic soul breaking all barriers of mind body name form associations . Whatever words we may use , the process and goal looks similar and ego still remains albeit in altogether new rejuvenated form.

This is my interpretation of my learning so far . Request your feedback on this .

[HITESH SHAH]

Originally Posted by lemex

Super ego seems to always agree with the flow. The super ego does not seem to be as powerful as the ego. An example is, a criminal can justify what they do. This is an example of super ego applies. They know it is wrong but do it anyway. Super ego mirrors ego. Does super ego merely agree. *Forgot, super ego will always apply right imo.

According to scriptures God created world to have the fun of play . One can not have the excitement and enjoyment of play one does not have enough free hand/will and if there are no risks/rewards for each step of the play . So God or superego simply does not come in the way of ego .

However as part of the play , He is always there within us as an observer , auditor , sustainer , mentor , umpire etc . Depending our evolutionary journey He also changes role suitable to our levels in our evolution.

Originally Posted by Jyotir

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.

Agreed, and yes to the above.

I will also take a look at the article you mention.

JL

Originally Posted by lemex

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

Ego creating complexity about ego. Anything to befuddle, and in this context, the constant references to psychology and "Freud" and "Jung" are classic befuddlement.

The spiritual path is much smoother and clearer, and, it works.

JL

Originally Posted by BigJohn

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?

Buddhist scriptures do not use the word ego, but many aspects of it are used as shorthand/translation.

And as usual, you obfuscate the key point.

Ego is not a word unique to psychology, even though there are certain people on this forum who obsess with that usage.

Ego simply means the sense of self and self-importance.

In spiritual terms, it has a different point of reference and usage.

It is not about whether one has a good looking ego or not (in fact, most ego behavior is intended to portray an image of such. Just look to the evil minds who conceive of themselves as loving people. Many Nazi soldiers who exterminated Jewish people by day were loving family men by night. They consider/ed themselves good people, perhaps even with love in their heart.)

Clearly the dichotomy is evident; spiritual pursuit is not about how good an ego is or whether ego is about believing one's owns intentions or behaviors, BUT it is about clarifying what is of God or Buddha, and what is not.

In Buddhist terms one can look at it as that sense of separateness that does not perceive it to be part of the All, and thus acts as such.

In Christian terms one can see it as the giving up of the individual sense of sense, merged into the All.

"I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me" (Galatians 2:20).

https://www.compellingtruth.org/Bible-ego.html

Advaita-Vedanta quite explicitly recognizes the ego is to be subsumed into the nature of True Self, with a very clear delineation that although the shadow is caused by the Light, it is never the Light itself and this need for delineation is the cause and reason for much of spiritual endeavor.

We have to begin, of course, with the ego, but our goal is to go forward until the ego discovers the Self. The primary function of the ego is to identify itself with this and that. The ego cannot help it. We have to bear with the nature of our egos, but at the same time we have to train the ego so that its tendency of identification is directed to supersensuous ideas and ideals. It has to be taught to associate itself with God. The ego then learns to call itself the servant or the child of God.

https://vedanta.org/2003/monthly-rea...-and-the-self/

Hinduism:

I am neither the mind, nor the intellect, nor the ego, nor the mind-stuff (translation of Adi Shankara’s Nirvana Shatakam)

Spiritual traditions - genuine ones - have never disagreed on the principles of ego-lessness, or Love and Truth.

And it is important to recognize that this forum and title "Spirituality" is not about psychology and slight improvements left and right in the psyche or a feel good club - it is about the examination and review of the fundamental fabric of human kind and God-ness.

It is SPIRITuality that is here of interest.

As always, YMMV, John.

JL

Originally Posted by God-Like

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

"The ego is a ring of defense around nothing."

~ Krishnamurti

Originally Posted by HITESH SHAH

Most spiritual practices talk of killing ego.

Hi HITESH

I think most spiritual practices do not talk of this but scholars and other people who are not familiar with genuine practices might misuse the phrase.

Jmo,

JL

Originally Posted by janielee

Hi HITESH

I think most spiritual practices do not talk of this but scholars and other people who are not familiar with genuine practices might misuse the phrase.

Jmo,

JL

Let me try to tie this back to your thread about Work without Motivation.

The ego is not killed. It cannot be killed. It's necessary to function and survive within the multiplicity. However one can detach from its motivations (cravings and aversions) and then both action and inaction do not generate Karma.

Of course ego cannot be allowed to run amok. It must be constrained within moral and ethical standards. One must do what one must do and one must not do what one must not do, regardless of ego's desires. If one identifies with ego this can be difficult, if not impossible. If one identifies with Consciousness, Existence, Brahman, God, Higher Power then the possibility of true free will exists and ego is then but a tool of nature in service of Consciousness, Existence, Brahman, God, Higher Power.