The Ego and Thought

[CarsonZi]

Namaste Friends....

 

I thought that the below discussion warranted a new topic instead of threadjacking SB's Ego Inflation topic, so I have moved the related posts over here into a new thread.

 

Here is the first post, written by Kate. (hopefully you don't mind me doing this Kate....if you do, I will have no problem editting this thread out....let me know)

 

Love,

Carson

 

 

 

 

Originally posted by Kate in the Ego Inflation thread:

 

Hum.

 

What I am thinking right now is that "ego" is only the content that you decide it's going to be (structurally they are all the same;-))

 

So you could have a very small one (sorry to anyone to whom the double-entendre is offensive;-)) or you could have a really BIG one - encompassing - oh, I dunno - everything in all of its richness and connectedness- but that would mean you'd have to act accordingly And that is a lot of ff-ing work Apologies for the allusion;-)

 

I love discussions when we start off thinking we're all talking about the same thing, but it has so many perspectives and then we get further on and we might ask ourselves if we are all talking about oranges and if they are from Sienna or not;-)

 

I dunno SB - I think only you can tell your level of Secret Narcissism. If you are interested in Narcissus, read his myth. Or at worst, read Joseph Campbell or Thomas Moore. The question I would ask is why do you require confirmation of anything at all?

 

What I'm wondering about here onTTB quite often is that that we seem to be using a sort of normative (albeit on a scale of what might be considered completely nuts to others;-)) approach to experiences that may or may not have a reference point until some time has passed and enough others have identified (I don't say "had" and we can look at that some other time) the experience to consider it "normal". I know that maps exist and yet they were made for (sometimes) very different cultures, different models, different epochs.

 

 

 

Originally posted by CarsonZi in the Ego Inflation thread:

 

 

Hi Kate and thank you for the really great post.....I hope you don't mind if I jump in where Mr. MarbleHead would not.....

 

Kate said:

Hum.

 

Hum indeed!

 

Kate said:

What I am thinking right now is that "ego" is only the content that you decide it's going to be (structurally they are all the same;-))

 

I "think" you are right, but I am still unsure in my heart. I had written a post saying that the ego can be in unconscious aspects of your mind, but in the process of doing so, I realized that I don't actually fully agree with that....this is a great statement that is causing some really deep inquiry here.....thank you.

 

"ego is only the content that you decide it's going to be"

 

Some questions to inquire into:

1.) Can there *be* unconscious mind-content?

2.) Can you honestly be aware of mind-content and decide it *isn't* ego?

3.) Can the ego exist *without* mind-content?

 

I don't know that I have answers to these questions.....I have written and re-written this post about 3 times now, and I still don't know, so I am going to drop these questions into Silence (samyama style) and see what comes up....or doesn't

 

Thank you again for the Inquiry-inducing post Kate!

 

Love,

Carson

 

 

 

Originally posted by Marblehead in the Ego Inflation thread:

 

Hi Carson,

 

Nice post. Interesting point you brought up. Yes, I think it is a given that ego is a component of our conscious mind. But what about our unconscious mind?

 

The only good representations of our unconscious mind, I think, can be found in our dreams.

 

I think that ego can be seen in many of our dreams. If we are the pivot of the dream then I think that the ego is expressing itself. However, in dreams where we are on the outside viewing ourself in that dream I think that the viewing is being done with an egoless mind.

 

And in line with this thought, when we are in deep meditation I think that once we have become mindless (that is, egoless) we are open to realizations beyond the limits and controls of the ego.

 

These are all new thoughts for me so I am fully open for alternate views.

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

 

Originally posted by CarsonZi in the Ego Inflation thread:

 

Hi MarbleHead....

 

Marblehead said

Nice post. Interesting point you brought up. Yes, I think it is a given that ego is a component of our conscious mind. But what about our unconscious mind?

 

I guess you could ask yourself these two questions:

1.) Are all mind-concepts ego?

2.) Is the unconscious mind ego-less?

 

Marblehead said

The only good representations of our unconscious mind, I think, can be found in our dreams.

 

It is my understanding that once you get to a certain point of Realization that you stop dreaming (but are instead "awake" while sleeping. I believe the state is called "Turiya". And I am also under the understanding that if you were truly "ego-less" you could not exist as a human being on Earth so-to-speak.....that there could be no physical form if you were truly ego-less. So, if both these two concepts were true that would mean that one could not live in Turiya while in human form...which is not the case. This means that (theoretically) you can relieve the awareness of the ego during dreaming, but not completely during any 3 Dimensional existence. Again this is all theoretically and completely speculative, as I do not have personal experience with living from Turiya all day (I have had glimpses during Deep Meditation, but they have never been lasting).

 

Marblehead said

I think that ego can be seen in many of our dreams. If we are the pivot of the dream then I think that the ego is expressing itself. However, in dreams where we are on the outside viewing ourself in that dream I think that the viewing is being done with an egoless mind.

 

I think that as long as we are still have dreams there is ego/conditioning still involved on some level. An "ego-less mind" will not dream in my opinion. Again, purely speculation....or perhaps an "educated guess"

 

Marblehead said:

And in line with this thought, when we are in deep meditation I think that once we have become mindless (that is, egoless) we are open to realizations beyond the limits and controls of the ego.

 

Absolutely.

 

Thanks for the conversation.

 

Love,

Carson

 

 

 

Originally posted by Kate:

 

While Jung is stuck in his stone tower, I'd like to jump back in because I've been really MORE interested in the stuff Carson's referring to that anything else this past while.

 

Carson, you said:

 

1.) Can there *be* unconscious mind-content?

 

I'm so very not sure about this one. Certainly we habitually accept that there is and that it is even a driving force in us (one of many, now including "genes") Are we still "right" about this? What would it mean for us if we were wrong?

 

This isn't meant to be anything other than an idea. I think what there might be is "habituation" (the "conditioning" that is often referred to by some Buddhists) which just doesn't require consciousness to function. So it's not a driving force unless it's set in motion, just an efficiency.

 

I think there is a point at which it becomes painful BUT this point is reached only when this ability results in a response that isn't actually adapted to the situation at hand. The less than desirable result is then re-fed back into the whole thing.

 

So we might also be looking at a system that is in constant reality-checking mode while also using its very efficient pattern-recognition process. I know I'm using sort of geeky-tech words, but I don't have others that I know to use to tell you what I'm after.

 

2.) Can you honestly be aware of mind-content and decide it *isn't* ego?

 

Yes I think you can. If you're reading a novel for example and conjuring up the scenes in your mind, you know it isn't "you" - I think the "you" has to have a certain (something;-)) about it to be acceptable to you as a "you". What that might be is??

 

3.) Can the ego exist *without* mind-content?

 

I think that it would depend on 1) and 2)

 

Thanks for the interesting discussion!

Edited October 7, 2009 by CarsonZi

[Marblehead]

Okay. So let's try a discussion of ego (again, Hehehe).

 

I will suggest that when we are born we are total ego. We are everything and we are the only thing that is important. As long as 'we' are satisfied the world is in order but as soon as we have any kind of need the entire world is supposed to respond to our need.

 

Peace & Love!

[CarsonZi]

Hi Kate and thanks for continuing this conversation with me....I think there is something really worthwhile (for me) hidden here........

 

Kate said

While Jung is stuck in his stone tower, I'd like to jump back in because I've been really MORE interested in the stuff Carson's referring to that anything else this past while.

 

Carson, you said:

 

1.) Can there *be* unconscious mind-content?

 

I'm so very not sure about this one. Certainly we habitually accept that there is and that it is even a driving force in us (one of many, now including "genes") Are we still "right" about this? What would it mean for us if we were wrong?

 

 

I think we are both in the same spot with this one. We definitely seem to grow up "knowing" (small 'k') that our unconscious mind plays a large part in "who we are". But in reality, is it not only the THOUGHT that our unconscious mind plays a part that gives the unconscious mind the ability to effect anything? And is there REALLY an "unconscious mind" at all? With the recent advances in quantum science we now know that "(conscious) perception" plays a large part in the way our environments present themselves.... so extrapolating on that, could we not say that what we call the "subconscious" doesn't actually exist until it becomes conscious or at least until ""we" become conscious of the unconscious? Does that make any sense?

 

Kate said

This isn't meant to be anything other than an idea.

 

Haha...how could it be anything other (just being cheeky, don't mind me )

 

Kate said

I think what there might be is "habituation" (the "conditioning" that is often referred to by some Buddhists) which just doesn't require consciousness to function. So it's not a driving force unless it's set in motion, just an efficiency.

 

I definitely think there could be something to this. Is the unconscious mind just "conditioning" and does it only play a part if we "allow" it (on some level) to?

 

Kate said

I think there is a point at which it becomes painful BUT this point is reached only when this ability results in a response that isn't actually adapted to the situation at hand. The less than desirable result is then re-fed back into the whole thing.

 

Can you clarify what "it" is in the sentence above saying; "there is a point at which IT becomes painful...."? I'm not sure what exactly becomes painful. Perhaps the Inquiry becomes painful, perhaps the habituation? Not totally sure what was meant here. Sorry for my ignorance.

 

Kate said

So we might also be looking at a system that is in constant reality-checking mode while also using its very efficient pattern-recognition process.

 

I think I understand what you are saying and I agree. I think that the mind (in order to understand what it percieves as reality) needs to compare/contrast/evaluate/analyze/etc etc and that the common answers clung to by the mind become our conditioning/unconscious. At least this is how I feel right now....this is always subject to change

 

Kate said

2.) Can you honestly be aware of mind-content and decide it *isn't* ego?

 

Yes I think you can. If you're reading a novel for example and conjuring up the scenes in your mind, you know it isn't "you"

 

This one seems pretty cut and dry, but is it really? It is well known by some that "we" are not our thoughts....yet, if you are reading a novel and picturing the scene, that "picturing" is a result of your personal "conditioning".....your mind's "thoughts/thought patterns". If there was no ego engaged while reading that book, would you still have the same "picturing"? I don't think so personally. Just my opinion though.

 

Kate said

I think the "you" has to have a certain (something;-)) about it to be acceptable to you as a "you". What that might be is??

 

What that might be is different for everyone which suggests that it is not "real", that it is ego. If "you" need something (anything really) in order to "be (acceptable to) you" then that is ego....not the "Real" you IMO. The "Real" you just exists regardless of any"thing". No some"thing" is necessary. Again IMO.

 

Kate said

3.) Can the ego exist *without* mind-content?

 

I think that it would depend on 1) and 2)

 

Really? If "you" are in Samadhi, (no thoughts) does the "ego" exist in that moment for you?

 

Kate said

Thanks for the interesting discussion!

 

Oh no....thank YOU

 

Love,

Carson

 

 

 

 

Hey Marblehead......

 

Marblehead said

Okay. So let's try a discussion of ego (again, Hehehe).

 

Yes, sorry for starting yet another Ego thread, but I really thought that what Kate and I are talking about here didn't belong in SB's Ego Inflation thread, and that it deserved it's own topic. Probably just ego Hahahaha....I crack myself up

 

Marblehead said

I will suggest that when we are born we are total ego. We are everything and we are the only thing that is important. As long as 'we' are satisfied the world is in order but as soon as we have any kind of need the entire world is supposed to respond to our need.

 

I will suggest the exact opposite.....when we are born there is NO ego....ego is conditioning/biases/habitual patterned responses......these are a result of time and experience. A newborn baby has none of these. Therefor IMO a newborn babe has no ego.....not until it starts to have experiences and develope memory.

 

I also don't agree that a baby expects to have it's needs met. It's physical body requires it, and the baby suffers if that doesn't happen....but I HIGHLY doubt that an infant EXPECTS it's needs to be met....not at first anyways.

 

Just my opinion.

 

Thanks for the conversation.

 

Love,

Carson

 

P.S. Sorry about the colors, but the quotes aren't working for me right now for some reason.

Edited October 7, 2009 by CarsonZi

[Marblehead]

I will suggest the exact opposite.....when we are born there is NO ego....

 

Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu, I think, agree with you.

 

I just wanted to broaden the discussion of ego.

 

I agree, It is good that you started this new thread for the discussion.

 

Peace & Love!

[-O-]

I'd like to chime in if that is okay...

 

 

A few years back I had to put allot of thought - or rather evaluation of my own experiences - in this regard. It was an effort to drill down what I really had come to understand/know due to meditative practices versus what I thought I knew because of something I was told... versus what I was told which fit meditative experience.

 

 

So... I don't believe that we are born with some enlightened "true" self which is somehow corrupted by society or conditioning etc. And I don't believe we are born with an ego either. My feeling is we are born with a set of faculties of awareness (eyes, ears, touch etc.) and the information gathered through these faculties has no context/meaning. And we ramble around, driven by sensory impulses and experience the world as touch (rough versus soft etc), sight (color, shape), sound (load, quite etc) . As enough information is gathered a distinction of these things emerge. On the level of barbaric physical senses these distinctions are quite easily made - it is not complicated- and can occur just from trial and error. Essentially no ego is necessary to experience roughness, softness.

 

 

However more complicated (and ultimately intangible) distinctions require some sort of ego perception... Let me back up - I don't define the ego as just the self - that is the personality - which is one object within the ego. I feel the ego has a twofold nature - one side is the "world" the other side is the "self" - where the horizon of our conscious awareness is the "world" and as we move toward the center of the envelope there is a line which states anything inside of here is "self" anything outside is "world". And these two sides are intimately interwoven and interdependent on the other. (the "world" defines the "self - the "self" defines the "world"). So the "world" is the horizon of awareness and with in this envelope there is another boundary which separates out the "world" from the "self".

 

 

I think at some point, when enough neurons are firing or enough data is collected... at some point we find our "self" in the "world". So let's look at this as an example of making more complicated distinctions (but still a pretty straight forward one).

 

 

To find our position within a space - say where you are standing with in a room... we take in data of the objects in the room through our very basic physical senses (sight sound etc). We can say "I am three feet to the left of the chair, and two feet in front of the lamp - I am eight feet away from the back wall". To come to this distinction we MUST have a "self" in which to reference the objects in the room - and we can only find the "self" in relation to these objects.

 

 

So say there is a chair directly in front of us with a table behind it (which we cannot see) and a flower vase on the table (which we can see) [this is a more complicated distinction] - we may have difficulty in seeing where the chair ends and the flower begins - this is a confusion - a tension experienced (a distinction which hasn't emerged, yet is important regarding our location in space). To make the distinction of the flower's location versus the chair's location all we need to do is simply move slightly left or right. In doing so the flower's position to us changes slightly differently than the chair's location. In changing our own position we come to the different distinctions of distance for the flower and chair -(by changing our "self" we have come to a new definition of "world").

 

 

Now in order to be consciously aware of any of this we need to recreate the situation. We do this first by positing a "self" within a perception in the mind - then posit each object in relation to the "self" position. So we have found ourselves in the world as "three feet to the left of the chair" - but we find the "world" as "the chair is three feet to the right of me". So raw - unhampered - awareness is world first - self second. Conscious awareness is "self" first "world" second. By creating this perception (of which is always posited around the "self") , the "self" becomes the context/meaning of the data collected (and thus critically important). And to become aware at this level necessitates a "self" vs "world" perception - or an ego - it requires us to create an ego to be able to distinguish relationships of objects in our field of awareness (in this case the relationship of spatial location).

 

 

So this distinction came about because...

 

1) we collected data through raw awareness - Awareness

 

2) we recreated that data in our minds as a perception - Perception

 

3) we return to our awareness, holding the perception in mind to "reality test" the perception. - Intention.

 

If the perception is wrong, inaccurate - the initial tension felt (from the emerging distinction) is not released so we return back into the mind - recreate or modify the perception (and we do this by modifying the "self") and then return to awareness to "reality test" again. It is a conditional test loop. The returning to awareness while "holding" this perception is "intention" or intentional awareness (awareness under tension or with a forced direction/definition)

 

so... 1)awareness 2) perception 3) intention... if by executing 3, 1 and 2 do not match then we repeat the cycle until the tension is released (or the intentional "holding" of perception is no longer needed - because the distinction is found in awareness... and the distinction does not require an "ego" to be clearly aware of it.

 

 

So the caveat is... what happens when we are in the middle of this test loop and the moment passes - or the object we are attempting to distinguish is intangible (not found in the physical senses)... we return to awareness and the object we are attempting to reality test is gone? We are stuck "holding" the perception... and the accumulation of these held perceptions becomes the specific definitions of "world" and "self". This "holding" is physical not psychical thus the body is important in allowing these perceptions to be literally "let go" and is felt in the body as simply "resistance".

 

 

We then believe these perceptions to be "self" and then begin to defend it (because it is critically important to our conscious awareness) which keeps us in an never ending test loop from 1-3. Thus the importance of not defending the self, going to confessional, destroying the ego etc, becomes our means of growing into greater awareness - and I believe that there is a constant momentum naturally towards this - however until the "self" is distinguished as an object with in perception (or a perception) then we continue to stay in this test loop. And "suffering" is the result of working in opposition to this natural momentum.

 

 

The information which we have collected through raw awareness which does not have or has not been assigned a context or meaning then floats around in awareness, but not with in conscious awareness and thus exerts a pressure onto conscious awareness (or felt as the pressure which we are resisting and suffering). And this information which has no context in conscious awareness is the unconscious or subconscious (as per its definition).

 

 

Here is a completely different thought. Just as there is the idea of an collective unconscious - of which our subconscious is an individuality which lives within this collective - perhaps "self" is the individuality which lives within a collective consciousness where we experience the collective as cold hard objects like the ground, or the walls of our room...

 

 

(sorry for the length and the spelling).

 

 

..edited to add.

 

So meditation on emptiness is not the practice of creating a contentless mind - or even a mind that is not thinking.(as thinking is yet just another object with in the field of awareness). It is the practice of being conscious of objects within awareness without the context/meaning layed over top of it - and this is achieved be letting go - surrendering - intentional effort applied to observation and letting go - surrendering - resistance to what is being observed. The end realization is; "self" is consciousness which can only be experienced in present moment observation free of resistance and intentionality.

Edited October 7, 2009 by -O-

[Marblehead]

Hi -O-,

 

Nice presentation. Thanks for sharing.

 

Peace & Love!

[CarsonZi]

Hi -O-......

 

I'd like to chime in if that is okay...

 

Absolutely! Take 'er away!

 

So... I don't believe that we are born with some enlightened "true" self which is somehow corrupted by society or conditioning etc.

 

I wouldn't say this either.... Only you can "corrupt" yourself....noone can "corrupt" you. We all make our own decisions based on our perceptions at the time. So basically I wouldn't say that conditioning "corrupts" our "True Self" but I would definitely say that conditioning obscures the True Self.

 

And I don't believe we are born with an ego either.

 

On this I don't know what I believe. I know that my sister who has two children, born with the same man, raised in the same home, the same way, and they are TOTALLY different kids.....I mean complete polar opposites. But I don't know if this indicates that we come into life "with baggage" or not. It could just be as simple as what you are about to say below (which is my inclination as well)....

 

My feeling is we are born with a set of faculties to percieve (eyes, ears, touch etc.) and the information gathered through these faculties has no context/meaning. And we ramble around, driven by sensory impulses and expereince the world as touch (rough versus soft etc), sight (color, shape), sound (load, quite etc) and as enough information is gathered a distinction of these things emerge. On the level of barbaric physical senses these distinctions are quite easily made - it is not complicated- and can occur just from trial and error. Essentially no ego is nessesary to expereince roughness, softness.

 

Yes I totally agree. This is where conditioning/preferences/biases etc start to form. Do "I" like rough or soft? Loud or quiet? Bright or dark?

 

However more complicated (and ultimatly intangible) distinction require some sort of ego perception... Let me back up - I don't define the ego as just the self - that is the personality - which is one object with in the ego. I feel the ego has a two fold nature - one side is the "world" the other side is the "self" - where the horizon of our conscious awareness is really the outer boundry of everything we "know" and as we move toward the center of the envelope there is a line which states anything inside of here is "self" anything outside is "world". And these two side are intimatly interwoven and interdependant on the other. (the "world" defines the "self - the "self" defines the "world"). So the world is the horizon of the "world" and with in this envelope there is another boundry which separates out the "world" from the "self".

 

I agree with this....but I think you can make INFINITE divisions with the ego....it isn't limited to "world" and "self' (small 's'). Every ego will "divide" the world (and self) up differently. It is the act of dividing that is "egoic" though. To let go, just experience life like a baby, is to have no ego.....an ever present sense of "newness" or "innocence".

 

I would like to share with you (and All) a passage from Adyashanti's book "Emptiness Dancing" that illustrates what it was like for Adya when he "awoke" and essentially start seeing life like an infant once again:

 

"This tremendous innocence produces the feeling of an ever-present newness in Life. Since the awakening, the brain no longer holds and compares, so every moment is experienced as new, just as it would be in the mind of a young child. The adult mind tends to take things in, compare its perceptions to the litany of things that have happened in the past, and basically hold the attitude, "Been there, done that." It is rather arid, dry and boring. The innocent mind arises when this comparison is no longer happening."

 

I think at some point, when enough nerons are firing or enough data is collected... at some point we find our "self" in the "world".

 

I don't think it has anything to do with neurons firing or collecting enough data....in fact I think finding your Self in the World (or the World in your Self, both ways work) you need to LET GO of collecting data, let go of the need for answers and just abide in the beauty of Unknowing. To me this is where all this is pointing.

 

So lets look at this as an example of make more complicated distinctions (but still a pretty straight forward one). To find our position with in a space - say where you are standing with in a room... we take in data of the object and the room through our very basic physical senses (sight sound etc). We can say "I am three feet to the left of the chair, and two feeet infront of the lamp - the back wall of the room is eight feet forward. To come to this distinction we MUST have a "self" in which to reference the object is the room - and we can only find the "self" in relation to these objects.

 

I understand what you are saying, but I see things a little differently I think. I think a BABY would see things much differently. To me, the problem lies in trying to "find our position". Unbound Awareness has no position....it is everywhere, nowhere, everything and nothing. Trying to locate a "self" is futile...it doesn't exist. All that exists are ideas/thoughts/beliefs/conditioning/memories/biases/preferences etc etc etc....and these things are not the "Self". Ultimately there is no "Self"....all is the Self.

 

So say there is a chair directly infornt of us with a table behind it (which we can not see) and a flower vase on the table (which we can see) [this is a more complicated distinction] - we may have difficulty in seeing where the chair ends and the flower begins - this is a confusion - a tension expereinced (a distinction which hasn't emerged, yet is important regarding our location in space). To make the distinction of the flower's location versus the chair's location all we need to o is simply move slight left or right. In doing so the flower's postion to us changes slightly differently then the chair's location. In changing our own position we ome to the different distances of the flower and chair -(by changing our "self" we have come to a new definition of "world").

 

In letting go of the need for answers, letting go of the need to make distinctions, we lose the "self". This, for me, seems to equal Pure Bliss Consciousness, which is my "goal" (even though I know there is nowhere to go and noone to get there). When you stop searching for answers (especially to where "you" end and where the "world" begins) it is possible to just abide in pure undefined existence, which for me equals Bliss.

 

So this distinction came about because...

 

1) we collected data through raw awareness

 

2) we recreated that data in our minds as a perception

 

3) we return to our awareness, holding the perception in mind to "reality test" the perception. If hte perception is wrong, inaccurate - the inital tension felt (from the emerging distintion) is not released so we return back into the mind - recreate or modify the perception (and we do this by modifying the "self") and then return to awareness to "reality test" again. It is a conditional test loop. The returning to awareness while "holding" this perception is "intention" or intentional awareness (awareness under tension or with a forced direction/definition)

 

so... 1)awareness 2) perception 3) intention... if by executing 3, 1 and 2 do not match then we repeat the cycle until the tension is realeased (or the intentional "holding" of perception is no longer needed - because the distinction is found in awareness...

 

The tension is not truly released when you come to understand that your perception "matches Reality". It may give you some "space" for a moment, but as long as you are identified with the small 's' "self" there will always be mind-contractions/tension. At least that is my exerience....doesn't negate yours.

 

So the caveat is... what happens when we are in the middle of this test loop and the moment passes - or the object we are attempting to distinguish is intangible (not found in the physical senses)... we return to awareness and the object we are attempting to reality test is gone? We are stuck "holding" the perception... and the accumulation of these held perceptions becomes the specifc definitions of "world" and "self". This "holding" is physical not psychical thus the body is important in allowing these perceptions to be literally "let go" and is felt in the body as simply "resistance".

 

Yes I agree with this for sure. "Grasping", "holding", "clinging"....these are all attempts to define reality....which is in essence undefinable. Better to let go (with body-mind and spirit) and just abide in Undefined Existence.

 

We then believe these perceptions to be "self" and then begin to defend it which keeps us in an never ending test loop from 1-3. Thus the importance of not defending the self, going to confessional, destroying the ego becomes our means of growing into greater awareness - and I beleive that there is a constant momentum naturally towards this - however until the "self" is distinguished as an object with in perception (or a persception) then we continue to stay in this test loop. And "suffering" is the result of working in opposition to this natural momentum.

 

I think I "get" what you are saying and I think I agree. Basically you are saying that until the "self" (again small 's') is seen as a perception, and not as an object in and of itself, we will always be stuck defining our existence and suffering due to the seperation imposed from this, correct?

 

And information which we have collected through raw awareness which does not have or has not been assined a context or meaning then floats around in awareness, but not with in conscious awareness and thus exerts a pressure onto conscious awareness (or felt as resistance and suffering).

 

Can you really "collect information" without assigning it a context? Personally I don't think so. I think you can experience information, but the moment you try to "collect" it, it becomes distinguised as seperate from the self and reinforces the ego.

 

Here a a completly different thought. Just as there is the idea of an collective unconscious - of which our subconcious is an individuality which lives with in this collective - perhaps ego is the individualty whcih lives with in a collective consciousness where we expereince the collective as cold hard objects like the ground, or the walls of our room...

 

I'm pretty sure that is just stating exactly what both of us have been saying above in different words. The moment you stop BEING the collective unconscious/Unbound Awareness, you are (identified with) the ego/individual.

 

(sorry for the length and the spelling).

 

Likewise! Thanks for taking the time to write such a detailed and well thought out post. It's a pleasure to converse with you!

 

Love,

Carson

Edited October 7, 2009 by CarsonZi

[doc benway]

Really nice posts everyone.

I'm not sure I have much to add but fingers are typing nonetheless...

 

Would it be useful to define Ego?

I'm not sure everyone is referring to the same concept.

Are we speak of Freud's Ego?

Are we discussing the experience of being separate or individual?

Are we speaking of what Ramana would refer to as the "I" thought or the first thought. The thought that separates itself and creates the awareness of an experiencer that is separate from the experience?

Are we referring simply to the nature of awareness?

 

-O-'s post was really interesting. I fully agree that we seem to be focusing on the nature of the experience of feeling separate from the "outside" world. I really like idea of a "horizon of conscious awareness" as defining self and other. I also like bringing physical sensation and perception into the discussion.

 

It is relatively straightforward to see how the illusion of a separate self stems from sensory perception. The tactile envelope of skin combined with the limitation of perspective to that which is 'behind my eyes' and 'between my ears' is a powerful experience. Nevertheless, establishing the origin of conscious awareness or non-conscious awareness is another matter altogether.

 

My experience seems to be along the lines that there is awareness and each living organism experiences existence through its unique set of sensory organs along with all of the behavioral and cultural conditioning that comes along with it. The nature of perception is such that it implies an separate and discreet focus of awareness. On the other hand, a committed attempt at discovering the nature and 'center' of this 'separate' awareness in all mystical traditions leads to the same conclusion - non-duality. It has different names and subtle differences that allow each of our tribes to claim superiority but it's all the same glimpse of the same truth.

 

This is what the newborn experiences - a lack of separation from those rudimentary sensory impulses. There is no baby that is hungry, there is just hunger and so forth. This is different than Ego or self in which there is an experiencer yearning for or avoiding an experience.

 

Anyway - just a few random thoughts to hopefully add to the interesting thread. This type of thread is why I like Tao Bums, Buddha Bums, Jew Bums, Jesus Bums, Jaina Bums or whatever we want to call it.

[Albert]

Hello to Kate, Marblehead, Carson, -o-, Steve,

 

Very 'thought' provoking read.

 

In fact i feel humbled by it and happy...and sort of scared. Not scared as in frightened, more like i am in awe of your creativity in your explanations. I must admit my brain was starting to get all tangled up while reading '-o-'s explanation, but i feel like i got the gist of it. You are obviously alot more conscious than i am!

 

My experiences have led me to feel that the ego is the thing which helps us to function in the complexity of life and makes me an individual whilst my true self provides simplicity and peace into my life mainly through providing me with perspective and sort of brings an inner smile and makes me feel good about not knowing the answer to 'why am i here' and 'how did all of this begin'.

 

This thread has really added something to me - thanks - i will try to 'pay it forward'

 

Albert

[CarsonZi]

Hi Steve....great post, thanks for contributing. It seems that every thread I start seems to die really fast (no interest), so I don't usually start them......glad there are at least a few of you out there who find this worth discussing!

 

Would it be useful to define Ego?

I'm not sure everyone is referring to the same concept.

Are we speak of Freud's Ego?

Are we discussing the experience of being separate or individual?

Are we speaking of what Ramana would refer to as the "I" thought or the first thought. The thought that separates itself and creates the awareness of an experiencer that is separate from the experience?

Are we referring simply to the nature of awareness?

 

It's probably a good idea to define that which we are discussing eh?

I personally define ego pretty much the same as Ramana Maharishi.....the "I-thought", "I-sense" "I-ness".

That which pulls us away from/obscures the view of the True Nature of Consciousness (which is Oneness, IMO).

 

-O-'s post was really interesting. I fully agree that we seem to be focusing on the nature of the experience of feeling separate from the "outside" world. I really like idea of a "horizon of conscious awareness" as defining self and other. I also like bringing physical sensation and perception into the discussion.

 

It is impossible to define the experience of being the Unified Whole.....but at the same time as this experience there can be physical sensation. This I find fascinating...but in my experience, as soon as you try to "locate" the physical sensations within a Oneness experience, you are once again seperated from the Whole. I don't find that there is room for "perception" within the Oneness "state". There can be experience, but in grasping at, holding onto, striving for, or clinging to any specific perception of that experience, you will always lose the beauty of the Unbound Awareness experiencing itSelf.

 

It is relatively straightforward to see how the illusion of a separate self stems from sensory perception. The tactile envelope of skin combined with the limitation of perspective to that which is 'behind my eyes' and 'between my ears' is a powerful experience. Nevertheless, establishing the origin of conscious awareness or non-conscious awareness is another matter altogether.

 

Absolutely! Pretty hard to establish the origin of something that is "Sourceless"! If there was a Source to the Unbound Awareness, then it wouldn't be "UNbound"! hahaha

 

My experience seems to be along the lines that there is awareness and each living organism experiences existence through its unique set of sensory organs along with all of the behavioral and cultural conditioning that comes along with it.

 

I don't think that there are many other organisms on Earth that are "Self Aware" like we human beings are. I could be wrong though, but I think that is what makes the human experience so unique/special/important/desired etc etc. The only animal that I get a feeling could potentially be "Self Aware" similar to a human is a dolphin. And don't ask me why, I don't know...I just have a feeling.

 

The nature of perception is such that it implies an separate and discreet focus of awareness. On the other hand, a committed attempt at discovering the nature and 'center' of this 'separate' awareness in all mystical traditions leads to the same conclusion - non-duality. It has different names and subtle differences that allow each of our tribes to claim superiority but it's all the same glimpse of the same truth.

 

I agree 100% Steve.

 

This is what the newborn experiences - a lack of separation from those rudimentary sensory impulses. There is no baby that is hungry, there is just hunger and so forth. This is different than Ego or self in which there is an experiencer yearning for or avoiding an experience.

 

Perfectly said....I tried to say something similar above, but probably only made it more confusing...thanks for your clarity!

 

Anyway - just a few random thoughts to hopefully add to the interesting thread. This type of thread is why I like Tao Bums, Buddha Bums, Jew Bums, Jesus Bums, Jaina Bums or whatever we want to call it.

 

Thanks for contributing! It is great that we can discuss stuff like this here.

 

Love,

Carson

[Birch]

Carson, Mr Marble, -o-, Steve and Albert and everyone,

 

I'm so very happy this thread is here!

 

Carson, -O- expressed what I wanted to explain as pain (suffering) much more beautifully than I ever could have. It is the experience of pain I referred to ("there is suffering")

 

For many other parts of the post, I'm still contemplating it. Maybe your posts are too thought/contemplation provoking Carson - hence the fact they drop off the front board pretty fast then no-one can find them again;-)

 

I was happy to see the idea that a baby's particular way of sensing the world could be the precipitating action (or maybe this would be better considered as "intent" or how about "Karma?" without the mysticism?) that forms its personality and way of being.

 

I read another cool thing somewhere else about children with autism and the suggestion that they just physically hurt if hugged in way they consider too rough. It's very possible that this does not help their development and their sense of connection with others and so their conditional loop pursues in that sense - when all it might take is a lighter embrace, or just being there.

 

I don't know, sometimes I am sad at the lack of care we seem to take when around each other. Does this come from lack of awareness? (Another thread?;-))

 

Just as not all waterfalls are the same, neither are people. And yet we keep looking for what makes us all the same. Maybe it's just the water;-) This is what I get an eeny teeny glimpse of sometimes, and I call it Tao (but I could be wrong - as usual.)

[Easy]

This looks like fun.

 

When one starts talking the ego and the subconscious and true self and Mind of Tao and Buddha Self, one is talking about structures. I don't like structure, and when it really gets down to nut cutting time I would guess they don't exist. I like process in the sense of "far from equilibrium thermodynamics" and its self-organizing systems. (The classic self-organizing system is a hurricane.) And I also like to quote myself from time to time and here, by way of a preface to the rest of this rant, is a segment from an old blog post:

 

"There is a stretch through the Grand Canyon where the river has sliced deepest into earth and running flat pushes swiftly through sheared strata that are a bazillion years old and have names like Vishnu Schist, solid, straight up, uncracked rock. There are no sand bars, no falls or rapids, or beaches, no gravel, no boulders and nothing sharp to slice the water so it sucks up air and turns white. The surface is flat and dark; from a distance it looks placid. These vertical walls narrow the channel so the passage of the river is like forcing a fifteen-amp charge through a ten-amp wire; things get ftritzy inside. The river has scoured and sanded the rock into polished deep undulations, tunnels, pockets, caves, ramps and corners that shape and push the water into too many conflicting directions; it tangles the flow for miles into a turbulent, multi-skeined knot of insane subsurface hydraulics: roils, eddies, backwashes, under tows, whirlpools and cross currents heaving against cross-current, against the walls and boats, boiling to the surface and sucking downward, forcing past each other with enough velocity to shear a wooden oar in two if it is caught between. Shallow fissures suddenly snap open between the currents, hiss across the surface like snakes and then as instantly disappear. It is a welter of over wrought, omni-dimensional ripples, reverberating at the power of 10. This simple landscape of dark flat water and black vertical rock is called The Inner Canyon.

 

"Of the various meditation techniques that rely on energetic movement, I lean toward the more subtle fringes of Taoist Spiritual Alchemy and these have a historically documented root in shamanic practices. Looking at the phenomena from either position, alchemy or shamanism, it does not take long to realize, apprehend visually, the finely wrought, omni-directional, eternally reverberating, multi-skeined knot of turbulent energy and information that is the Whole of It engulfing Ourselves, the universal Inner Canyon, where ambiguity resonates to the 10th power. Nowhere can one take a core sample or cut a cross-section that will dependably tell one anything except how that specific location used to look, nowhere is there solid predictability, nowhere is there anything that can be made discreetly identifiable as one's own, nowhere is there knowledge or experience or their feeble, schizoid cousin, memory, that isn't constantly mutated beyond the recognition of the day before. Anything other than the liberating reconciliation to the omnipresent hegemony of ambiguity is a fantasy."

 

That done, I'll drop in a few comments:

 

1) The standard well used phrase "ego consciousness," says pretty much all I need to know on the ego thing. Everything of which one is conscious in the moment (including of course the sense of "I") is ego...if it isn't conscious it isn't ego; from a strictly perceptual point of view if it isn't ego, it does not exist. The only things that one can truly perceive are the surfaces and the ego does nothing but surfs the surface.

 

2) I recently read where Tor Norretrander's The User Illusion, Cutting Consciousness Down to Size, made some expert's list of the top five scientific books of the 20th Century. In it he presents a fairly convincing argument that that of which one is conscious at any given moment represents about one-one/millionth of the totality of what the system senses in that moment. A lot of that of course is redundant, but the point is that the full psyche feeds the conscious ego just the minimum of what it needs to know. Which means that the conscious ego is nothing but a little tag-along that is always about one-half second behind what is engaging the rest of the being. This in turn means that one can talk all they want about "experience," but how is one going to say anything definitive about an experience when one is only conscious of one-one/millionth of the thing? Illusions that are cobbled together as coherent through such things as consensus in an internet forum.

 

3) The only things that remains marginally consistent throughout one's life is DNA and fingerprints and the like, everything else is made up of and by an infinite number of contingencies as one goes along and this includes the illusion of a Self.

 

Maybe more later. Maybe not.

[Birch]

Oh thanks! I liked this too!

 

What's up with "structure"?

[Marblehead]

Yeah Easy. Say more about structures, please.

 

I don't agree with your final points 1) and 3) in their entirity and I do not have enough knowledge to discuss 2).

 

The reason I don't fully accept 1) is because of this: ... if it isn't ego, it does not exist. That is a too generalized statement for me to be able to agree with.

 

To 3), well, after reading it a third time I have changed my mind. I agree with 3).

 

The state of sleep is considered the unconscious state. Many of our dreams are dreams in the first person, that is, ego is present. Therefore it does not require consciousness for ego to be present or for self-awareness to be present. Self awareness can happen in the unconscious (sleep-dream) state.

 

Peace & Love!

[-O-]

[Marblehead]

[-O-]

Hi -O-,

 

Heavy post! Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I will speak to only the following:

 

 

 

I do argee with this as long as we do not add any connotations or suggest that I am at one with the post.

 

I can experience the post only if I am separate from the post. This immediately posits the concept of '"I" and "not I"'. It is the "I", the ego, that will decide if I agree with the statement or not. If "I" did not see the post it would play no role in my life - that is, from my perspective, it would not exist.

 

Now, don't get me wrong here and think that I am saying that "I", that is, my ability to precieve, creates the world. I don't mean that. The statement still exists in and of itself; it is just that it doesn't exist in my world.

 

It is my ego (self-realization) that allows me distinguish myself from all other Manifestations. When I remove ego (like when I am in deep meditation) it is then that there is no 'this and that'.

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

 

What I am getting at is in this expereince the ego does not dissappear - it simply becomes another object (thought) with in the sea of objects - and yes to experience that object as self you will need to be separate. What I am leaning towards is the center of persception is no long centered on that self but rather the ongoing, ever-morphing act of perceiving - and that is not on the other side of some ego destruction but rather happening right now as simply your awareness of the post. The "True Self", "Buddha Nature", "Divine Nature" is, right now, the present moment awareness of the post - consciousness. The only thing that changes in us as we have this experience is the experience itself. This is why I say the ego is one step toward this and not something to get rid of to achieve it. The mystical definitions are just that, mystical, because the intellect has not caught up with the rest of experience. Once the experience is completed to a totality - the mystism drops away and it becomes very simple - then of course a whole other mystery opens up.

 

Yes, in the moment this is occuring "I AM everything" is the expereince because the "I" is being experience throught the conscious awareness of "everything" - and no I don't believe we create the world with our awareness. Nothing magical here - simply phenomenology.

Edited October 8, 2009 by -O-

[Marblehead]

What I am getting at ...

 

Very good response. Thanks. (I'm also in agreement if that matters. Hehehe.)

 

Peace & Love!

[CarsonZi]

Hi Kate and thanks again for contributing!

 

Carson, -O- expressed what I wanted to explain as pain (suffering) much more beautifully than I ever could have. It is the experience of pain I referred to ("there is suffering")

 

Are you saying that for you pain=suffering? For me the old addage "Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional" is True. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you.

 

For many other parts of the post, I'm still contemplating it. Maybe your posts are too thought/contemplation provoking Carson - hence the fact they drop off the front board pretty fast then no-one can find them again;-)

 

Haha...maybe but I doubt it....probably closer to "overly-simplistic" then too complex

 

I was happy to see the idea that a baby's particular way of sensing the world could be the precipitating action (or maybe this would be better considered as "intent" or how about "Karma?" without the mysticism?) that forms its personality and way of being.

 

I read another cool thing somewhere else about children with autism and the suggestion that they just physically hurt if hugged in way they consider too rough. It's very possible that this does not help their development and their sense of connection with others and so their conditional loop pursues in that sense - when all it might take is a lighter embrace, or just being there.

 

I find it just fascinating that the "baby/infant/child" thing has come up here.....I found out a little over a week ago that my wife and I are expecting our first child. This has sent me on a bit of an Inquiry quest, and a lot of this type of stuff has come up in trying to formulate a "parenting plan"....you can read here: http://www.aypsite.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=6489 more in that respect if you desire.....a lot of great parenting and pregnancy advice there.

 

I don't know, sometimes I am sad at the lack of care we seem to take when around each other. Does this come from lack of awareness? (Another thread?;-))

 

Lack of awareness for sure. If we were always aware of our True Nature, we would always be loving/caring to each other.....you would be doing unto others, for there is no self that is not an "other-self". We are all One.

 

Just as not all waterfalls are the same, neither are people.

 

Waterfalls ARE all the same on one level....they are all WATER. HOW they "fall" is always different, but a waterfall will always be water falling. Same with everything. Even on a physical level we are literally all One. There is nothing that exists in you that doesn't exist in me and vice versa.

 

And yet we keep looking for what makes us all the same. Maybe it's just the water;-) This is what I get an eeny teeny glimpse of sometimes, and I call it Tao (but I could be wrong - as usual.)

 

Haha...there's no "wrong"....there's only the thought-wrong. Best to let go of that thought

 

Love,

Carson

[CarsonZi]

Hi Easy and thanks for chiming in here! I really enjoyed reading your post....you have a poetic way with words for sure.

 

The only things that one can truly perceive are the surfaces and the ego does nothing but surfs the surface.

 

Perceive, yes....experience, no. One can only "percieve" the surfaces, but one can experience all that underlies the surface....once you try to put a "perspective" on that experience though, then you are back on the surface....this is the way it is here anyways.

 

2) I recently read where Tor Norretrander's The User Illusion, Cutting Consciousness Down to Size, made some expert's list of the top five scientific books of the 20th Century. In it he presents a fairly convincing argument that that of which one is conscious at any given moment represents about one-one/millionth of the totality of what the system senses in that moment.

 

I would agree. When we try to catagorize/label etc the feelings derived from our senses we are left with about one-one/millionth of the total experience. When we let go of catagorization/labelling we can just experience the totality of existence....Unbound Awareness.

 

This in turn means that one can talk all they want about "experience," but how is one going to say anything definitive about an experience when one is only conscious of one-one/millionth of the thing?

 

You can't. You can experience totality, but you cannot describe that in words....to try to is to catagorize/label the undefinable and you are back at the surface explaining one-one/millionth of totality.

 

3) The only things that remains marginally consistent throughout one's life is DNA and fingerprints and the like, everything else is made up of and by an infinite number of contingencies as one goes along and this includes the illusion of a Self.

 

The only thing that remains completely and utterly consistent throughout all of existence is Unbound Awareness. Everything else, EVERYTHING else is impermanent illusion.

 

Thanks for the stimulating conversation Easy!

 

Love,

Carson

 

 

 

 

Namaste -O- and thanks again for all the wonderful additions to this thread....

What I am getting at is in this expereince the ego does not dissappear - it simply becomes another object (thought) with in the sea of objects - and yes to experience that object as self you will need to be separate.

 

Exactly. This is exactly my experience as well. The ego never disappears, it is just seen for what it is and it is no longer identified with. It can be disregarded just the same as a(n annoying) thought.

 

Love,

Carson

Edited October 8, 2009 by CarsonZi

[Easy]

[Easy]

Carson, thanks for the kind words.

 

I can agree with what you say regarding the categorization of that which you call "Unbound Awareness." (I've given up naming whatever it is that I have experienced that is probably analogous to your Unbound Awareness.)

 

The only thing that remains completely and utterly consistent throughout all of existence is Unbound Awareness. Everything else, EVERYTHING else is impermanent illusion.

 

I really can't say I know that to be true. I try to stay away from metaphysics. But I certainly see no reason to argue with it. The fact that you wrote it tells me a little bit more about the workings of this process and so I am grateful.

 

Easy

[Marblehead]

 

I can see your point from an objectivist point of view.

 

Yep. That's generally where you will find me in discussions such as this. And that's okay, I think as it gives undecided readers more options to think about.

 

Regarding 'structures' I kinda' figured that this is what you were referring to.

 

Peace & Love!

[Birch]

Wow! It's great that there are so many perspectives to look at. Some of them are pretty compelling.

 

Do I have to choose one? I feel more like printing the thread out and putting it somewhere I can read it with some regularity - or at least put it somewhere so the relevant questions are at hand.

 

I'd like to contribute more but am presently a) tired concerned that I might not live up to the other posts - which is a pretty dumb thing to admit - given the subject matter. And yet as soon as I read the words ending in "-ist" i got all bent out of shape It was clearly a signal to me that I might be up for some kind of ridicule if I tried to take part in any -ist-related posting.

 

Yup, going to print this one out.

-----------------------------------------

 

Carson, congratulations for the arrival of your son

 

Thanks for re-including me in the thread Much appreciated.

[Marblehead]

Wow! It's great that there are so many perspectives to look at. Some of them are pretty compelling.

 

Do I have to choose one? I feel more like printing the thread out and putting it somewhere I can read it with some regularity - or at least put it somewhere so the relevant questions are at hand.

 

I'd like to contribute more but am presently a) tired concerned that I might not live up to the other posts - which is a pretty dumb thing to admit - given the subject matter. And yet as soon as I read the words ending in "-ist" i got all bent out of shape It was clearly a signal to me that I might be up for some kind of ridicule if I tried to take part in any -ist-related posting.

 

Yup, going to print this one out.

-----------------------------------------

 

Carson, congratulations for the arrival of your son

 

Thanks for re-including me in the thread Much appreciated.

 

Hi Kate,

 

Very nice post. Lots of thought stuff in there!

 

No. We don't have to choose one. Like Lao Tzu said (I paraphrase): "The Sage remains undecided." What a beautiful concept!! To remain fully open-minded! The ego has been reduced to the instinct of survival as it should be.

 

Kate, you have contributed a lot to this discussion. Know that. Okay?

 

People like us will never agree on the significance of ego. That's just the way it is because of our base of references.

 

I guess the most important thing is to acknowledge that it does exist and we each, individually, must decide on how to utilize it.

 

Peace & Love!

Edited October 9, 2009 by Marblehead