The Ego and Thought

[CarsonZi]

Hey Easy.....

 

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.)

 

Yeah, I totally "get" you here. Pretty pointless to try to define/label that which is Undefinable. But in the interest of discussion and "pointing the way", I use terms like "Unbound Awareness", "Undefinable Existence", "Infinite Intelligence" etc etc to indicate what I experience as our "True Nature". But I think we both agree that what our True Nature is cannot be spoken of, for in doing so it is like talking about one-one/millionth of That.

 

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.

 

That's honest and I totally respect that. I was just talking from my experience....and that is always subject to change, so...perhaps I should take a lesson from you and just keep quiet

 

Thanks for pointing the way

 

Love,

Carson

 

 

 

 

Hi Kate.....

 

Carson, congratulations for the arrival of your son

 

Thank you .....not sure it's a "son" yet though .....I don't really care one way or the other....all I am praying for is a healthy baby.

 

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

 

Hey, you are the one who started this discussion not me! I just created a new thread out of an old one...I own nothing! Thank you for being here and participating!

 

Love,

Carson

Edited October 9, 2009 by CarsonZi

[Unconditioned]

So, I'll throw in a perspective on this one. There's a lot of mention of experience as part of the ego and awareness of perception.

 

If we don't recognize the experience does that mean we've experienced it? When I have an experience how do I recognize it as such? What is my frame of reference to say "I had ______ experience"?

 

Can we recognize an experience without adding or taking away from it? I mean is it possible to experience something and exclude our bias?

 

Or, if we recognize our bias (conditioning), is that a "true" experience? Obviously once we start to talk about the experience we're back into the ego coloring it based on the past but while we're experiencing right this moment is it at all possible to do so while removing our conditioning?

 

Or, what if we let our conditioning be and recognize it as such. Is inclusion just the same as exclusion?

 

Hmm... so if I surrender to the limits of the ego, does that dissolve the ego or strengthen it?

 

Just a few questions/thoughts... i hope I'm not too off topic.

[Marblehead]

 

Can we recognize an experience without adding or taking away from it? I mean is it possible to experience something and exclude our bias?

 

 

I will speak to only this as I have a firm opinion concerning the concept.

 

My answer is: Absolutely Yes!

 

However, it's not always an easy thing to do and sometimes, IMO, it is not possible to do. Depends on what the experience is.

 

I like to use 'viewing a rose' as an example. As long as we view the rose in and of itself, without comparing it with any other roses we have ever seen then we are viewing it for what it is - nothing more, nothing less. But, if we grab the branch in order to pullit closer to our nose so we can smell it better and get a thorn in our hand all bets are off.

 

This is similar to accepting (or not) an individual for what they are without placing our expectations on that person.

 

Peace & Love!

[-O-]

So, I'll throw in a perspective on this one. There's a lot of mention of experience as part of the ego and awareness of perception.

 

If we don't recognize the experience does that mean we've experienced it? When I have an experience how do I recognize it as such? What is my frame of reference to say "I had ______ experience"?

 

Can we recognize an experience without adding or taking away from it? I mean is it possible to experience something and exclude our bias?

 

Or, if we recognize our bias (conditioning), is that a "true" experience? Obviously once we start to talk about the experience we're back into the ego coloring it based on the past but while we're experiencing right this moment is it at all possible to do so while removing our conditioning?

 

Or, what if we let our conditioning be and recognize it as such. Is inclusion just the same as exclusion?

 

Hmm... so if I surrender to the limits of the ego, does that dissolve the ego or strengthen it?

 

Just a few questions/thoughts... i hope I'm not too off topic.

 

 

 

 

Equanimity to all object in the field of awareness - all things weighed equally without emphasis or disregard - no pushing or pulling... no one thing which awareness stops to to investigate and this "experience" emerges... By trying to not color wth the ego or conditioning - then ego and conditioning become more important and have more focuss than say the lamp shade... lamp shade & ego - all weighed equally... in this place there is no distraction which pulls us out of meditation because all that is coming and going in and out of awareness is the meditation... and but "to do" this - attempt to do this with effort or intention is impossible - all one can do is give in, surrender, let go o the tendancy to resist or participate with what is going on.... expereince is something that comes after when we attmept to communicate it.

[taocultivator]

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.

 

I agree with you Carson. When we are born we are our True or Natural Self. We are free of expectations, ego, and material attachments. It is only with outside 'noise' and distractions that we begin to lose our True Self. Over time we are more and more affected.

[Unconditioned]

but "to do" this - attempt to do this with effort or intention is impossible - all one can do is give in, surrender, let go o the tendancy to resist or participate with what is going on.... expereince is something that comes after when we attmept to communicate it.

 

Yes I believe this is where I was going to some degree. Personally I've fallen into the trap of TRYING to get rid of the ego, TRYING to stop thoughts, etc. which has just strengthened them. But by letting things be as they are (cliche I know but it's true) and letting the calm awareness 'arise' then we're not caught up in thoughts/distractions and we can be aware of our participation in everything and everything's participation in us, which can expose to use our non-duel nature.

 

I like to use 'viewing a rose' as an example. As long as we view the rose in and of itself, without comparing it with any other roses we have ever seen then we are viewing it for what it is - nothing more, nothing less. But, if we grab the branch in order to pullit closer to our nose so we can smell it better and get a thorn in our hand all bets are off.

 

This is similar to accepting (or not) an individual for what they are without placing our expectations on that person.

 

I understand what you're saying, looking without projecting, but I'm still not convinced that this is possible.

 

I look at it and say "this is a living thing" or even say nothing at all but just feel it's presence... but even those ideas are products of my past experience.. even the feeling of oneness is relative to my past and will leave an imprint. The current experience of being present with the rose is being taken in by my being and influencing me at that moment. I cannot be separate from material and the material cannot be separate from me, which is the fragments of my past.

 

So, that said, if we see the completeness of how experience influences and we influence the experience, isn't that truth? Doesn't that 'dissolve' the divisions? Doesn't that unify the experience and experiencer into One no-separate-thing?

 

Just thinking outloud again here... thank you for the replies -O- and Marblehead.

[CarsonZi]

Hey Unconditioned....a couple really great posts...thank you.

Personally I've fallen into the trap of TRYING to get rid of the ego, TRYING to stop thoughts, etc. which has just strengthened them. But by letting things be as they are (cliche I know but it's true) and letting the calm awareness 'arise' then we're not caught up in thoughts/distractions and we can be aware of our participation in everything and everything's participation in us, which can expose to use our non-duel nature.

 

"non-duel"....hahaha....Fruedian slip? Just bugging you

On a more (somewhat) serious(ish) note, what you are saying above may sound cliche, but it's true....at least in my experience. As Byron Katie says (paraphrased by me ); "If you choose to argue/fight with Reality you will only lose 100% of the time."

 

I understand what you're saying, looking without projecting, but I'm still not convinced that this is possible.

I look at it and say "this is a living thing" or even say nothing at all but just feel it's presence... but even those ideas are products of my past experience..

 

Looking at something and saying "this is a living thing", or saying anything at all is completely different from "just feeling it's presence". Feeling the presence of Life/Existence in every moment without labeling it is to experience Life from your True Nature.....silent awareness. No judgements, no labels, just awareness.

 

even the feeling of oneness is relative to my past and will leave an imprint. The current experience of being present with the rose is being taken in by my being and influencing me at that moment. I cannot be separate from material and the material cannot be separate from me, which is the fragments of my past.

 

I don't know that I agree with this. To drop the labels, to lose the judgements, to just BE....is to Know the experience, the experiencer and the experiencing all in One beautifully Blissful awakeness. You can exist without including the "fragments of your past", for you aren't the fragments of your past.

 

So, that said, if we see the completeness of how experience influences and we influence the experience, isn't that truth? Doesn't that 'dissolve' the divisions? Doesn't that unify the experience and experiencer into One no-separate-thing?

 

Seeing it (IME) is not enough....you have to Live it too.

 

Thanks for the great conversation!

 

Love,

Carson

[Sunya]

i'd like to suggest a book! It's content revolves around "death" and "fear" and the author makes the point that our biggest and ultimate fear is the fear of non-duality.. the fear that there is truly no subject, that there is no ego. no "I". He uses Western and Eastern sources.

 

David Loy -- Lack and Transcendence: The Problem of Death and Life in Psychotherapy, Existentialism, and Buddhism

Amazon

 

also, Dr Loy has another book simply termed 'Non-Duality- which seems very interesting. his sources being primarily Taoist, Buddhist, and Advaita but he seeks to unify all positions using modern language.

 

Amazon

Edited October 9, 2009 by mikaelz

[Sunya]

Edited October 9, 2009 by mikaelz

[Marblehead]

Yeah Mikaelz,

 

I truely have a conflict here. I really want to hold to the concept of 'uncarved wood' and 'blank slate' but they conflict with other concepts I hold to.

 

This is one of those situations where I really cannot form a fixed opinion.

 

I truely believe that we are born with ego. That is my interpretations of what I have seen with my own eyes.

 

And I do accept Jung's theory of 'collective unconscious'.

 

I will probably remain undecided on this till the day I die.

 

Peace & Love!

[Birch]

Just out of curiosity - no mentions of pre-birth anything? I'm wondering about the mother/child mind/body prior to birth (Note I'm not up for a game of "when is a fetus viable" by posting this.)

[Vajrahridaya]

Just out of curiosity - no mentions of pre-birth anything? I'm wondering about the mother/child mind/body prior to birth (Note I'm not up for a game of "when is a fetus viable" by posting this.)

 

All are having an experience in another incarnation laying the effect that is to be the cause for the next birth and the intermingling co-existence as parent kid relationship.

[-O-]

Just out of curiosity - no mentions of pre-birth anything? I'm wondering about the mother/child mind/body prior to birth (Note I'm not up for a game of "when is a fetus viable" by posting this.)

 

 

 

IMHO - if I can't come to observe it for myself then it isn't much good to me (it ends up just being something that someone told me that I then assert as a truth) And I can't remember anything that far back - maybe 2 years old at the youngest. And this is consistent with biology and psychology which states we're not physically able to create memory prior to this... so I don't wrestle with that.... this to - to me- reinforces to the idea that we are not born with an ego.

 

We may have genetic tendencies - but this is not self awareness nor ego... ego occurs after or the point where we're able to form lasting memory (no ablility to recall - then there is no ability to reflect - therefore no ego). Which leads to the next idea which is... the root of illusion - or the inital spark that drives us into ego and illusion can not be a personal assault to the self... it is not an assualt on the ego which propells us into some twisted nature or corrupted consciousness - but rather the other way around. The root of illusions is what set in motion the development of an ego... to me this means that, although important work to do, psychology or engaging our personal deamons is a dead end. It will only keeps us cycling around inside the strucutre of, or process phases of the ego....

 

So if there is pre-egoic existence, egoic existence, and the possible liberation (trans-egoic existence) then perhaps the ego is simply one step on the staircase and to be in a trans-egoic place - then this place is contingent on the egoic space... (and would imply that trans-egoic is a natural phase and thus naturally we have a momentum towards this state - because of this - for me - my practices changed from trying to "accomplish" - to getting out of the way of what is and always has been happening naturally).

[Marblehead]

Hi -O-,

 

Now that was a good post and an excellent addressing of the subject at hand.

 

Peace & Love!

[doc benway]

Just out of curiosity - no mentions of pre-birth anything? I'm wondering about the mother/child mind/body prior to birth (Note I'm not up for a game of "when is a fetus viable" by posting this.)

I think this is a great question and worthy of considerable contemplation. Just like the great koans imply, our original face before our parents were born - what is that? Pulling Edo out of my sleeve, the head of a dead cat, if you see the Buddha in the road kill him! and all that stuff. It's not beyond our ability to observe that. It just implies a shift in perspective. It's staring us right in the face all the time. On the other hand, it's nothing that can be expressed in words or transmitted. It's a subtle shift that is intended to be stimulated by a variety of techniques (koans, prayer, meditation, and so on...).

 

 

IMHO - if I can't come to observe it for myself then it isn't much good to me (it ends up just being something that someone told me that I then assert as a truth) And I can't remember anything that far back - maybe 2 years old at the youngest. And this is consistent with biology and psychology which states we're not physically able to create memory prior to this... so I don't wrestle with that.... this to - to me- reinforces to the idea that we are not born with an ego.

 

We may have genetic tendencies - but this is not self awareness nor ego... ego occurs after or the point where we're able to form lasting memory (no ablility to recall - then there is no ability to reflect - therefore no ego). Which leads to the next idea which is... the root of illusion - or the inital spark that drives us into ego and illusion can not be a personal assault to the self... it is not an assualt on the ego which propells us into some twisted nature or corrupted consciousness - but rather the other way around. The root of illusions is what set in motion the development of an ego... to me this means that, although important work to do, psychology or engaging our personal deamons is a dead end. It will only keeps us cycling around inside the strucutre of, or process phases of the ego....

 

So if there is pre-egoic existence, egoic existence, and the possible liberation (trans-egoic existence) then perhaps the ego is simply one step on the staircase and to be in a trans-egoic place - then this place is contingent on the egoic space... (and would imply that trans-egoic is a natural phase and thus naturally we have a momentum towards this state - because of this - for me - my practices changed from trying to "accomplish" - to getting out of the way of what is and always has been happening naturally).

A few respectful differences of perspective -

 

I think you can observe it (prenatal existence) directly. It is not memory, it is not knowledge. It's simply experience. It transcends, predates, and outlives the ego. This is why it is presented in the form of a koan.

 

Regarding psychology - I don't think it is a dead end. I'm not speaking of engaging personal daemons per se. Nor am I speaking of analysis or behavioral modification. I'm speaking of knowing yourself very deeply and fundamentally. Patiently observing yourself without analysis, without judgement, just becoming aware. There is nowhere that we are more closely connected to the possibility of knowing truth than through ourselves - our conditioning, our behavior, our sensations and perception, our biases, and the whole structure of images we have created through which we think we understand the world, everything that makes us what we are. That is a subject worthy of considerable attention, IMO.

Edited October 11, 2009 by steve f

[Marblehead]

 

A few respectful differences of perspective -

 

I think you can observe it (prenatal existence) directly. It is not memory, it is not knowledge. It's simply experience. It transcends, predates, and outlives the ego. This is why it is presented in the form of a koan.

 

Regarding psychology - I don't think it is a dead end. I'm not speaking of engaging personal daemons per se. Nor am I speaking of analysis or behavioral modification. I'm speaking of knowing yourself very deeply and fundamentally. Patiently observing yourself without analysis, without judgement, just becoming aware. There is nowhere that we are more closely connected to the possibility of knowing truth than through ourselves - our conditioning, our behavior, our sensations and perception, our biases, and the whole structure of images we have created through which we think we understand the world, everything that makes us what we are. That is a subject worthy of considerable attention, IMO.

 

WoW! Talk about walking softly - you did a tippie-toe with that one. Hehehe. Nice post.

 

I agree with your first statement. That is pretty much a give in the medical field.

 

And your second comment is very nicely worded. I agree with what you say. One of the things I mention as often as I can is the improtance of knowing ourself - knowing our capabilities and capacities.

 

Peace & Love!

[-O-]

Regarding psychology - I don't think it is a dead end. ..

 

Let me clarify - a dead end in regards of this lesser awakening I'm refering to... the reason I feel this way is, although with therapy we can dislodge being stuck into a certain identification/behaviour/belief what have you - which is the process of softening and dismatling the ego - in the process of doing this and immediatly after is the repair or restructuring of the ego and it all ocurs in a reflective state so.... it is not so much "knowing oneself" as much as "knowing about myself" - so in terms of mediative work I find the process works in the opposite direction. (and still think it has great value in its own right)

 

...edited...

 

Let me try that again.... psychological insight, as best as I can describe it from the context of our conversations is... through reflection we can reveal limiting perspectives and the insight gained from that is really creating a less limiting perspective. And this new perception is built in the reflective mind - so although we are now less limited than before and we have an experience of moving beyond a limiting percpetion, awareness has not moved beyond the reflective state. We have traded one structure of thought for another. And by doing this as one structure is dismantled another (although less limiting) structure is built during the process of revelation- so it will never cultivate awareness beyond the bounds of thinking and reflection (or ego).

 

Where with "practicing awareness" (by returning to present moment awareness - physical senses) - when perceptions rise - we acknowledge this as a form of thought (or another object with in awareness) then perception is traded for awareness/observation - then awareness can build beyond the structures of thought. This is because the perception, prior to acknowledging it as a structure of thought, is the context for observation/awareness. At the moment we acknowledge the perception for what it is (a strucutre of thought) it stops being the context (or boundary) for awareness and becomes an object with in the context of observation (or present moment awareness) - thus awareness can then cultivate beyond the bounds of perception - it transcends.

 

This is not to say that therapy is not helpful or useful it is just different - it is trading one reflective perception for another less limiting reflective perception. By doing this the ego grows in its ability to cope with the world by being able to make connections and association which were not there before and gives the experience of the maliablity of the ego (or impermance of the ego) - but it is still all reflective perception.

 

So through therapy we learn to know about ourselves - while through awareness we get to know self though present moment awareness.

Edited October 12, 2009 by -O-

[doc benway]

Very well thought out argument. I will simply add that I don't see a difference between therapy and meditation. They are just artificial categorizations. There are methods of therapy that are nearly completely based in mindfullness practice without the analytical component - no tearing down and rebuilding, just observing with a loving attitude and accepting. This is what I practice. We get stuck in thought patterns and images like this. I say therapy and someone imagines Freud. I say meditation and someone imagines lotus position and a mudra. Meditation is not limited to sitting quietly with a quiet mind, that is simply an exercise. Therapy is not necessarily analysis and behavioral modification - hopefully it is healing and becoming whole.

It's very nice to converse with you -O-, and everyone else on this thread.

Thanks for very stimulating reading!

Steve

 

Let me clarify - a dead end in regards of this lesser awakening I'm refering to... the reason I feel this way is, although with therapy we can dislodge being stuck into a certain identification/behaviour/belief what have you - which is the process of softening and dismatling the ego - in the process of doing this and immediatly after is the repair or restructuring of the ego and it all ocurs in a reflective state so.... it is not so much "knowing oneself" as much as "knowing about myself" - so in terms of mediative work I find the process works in the opposite direction. (and still think it has great value in its own right)

 

...edited...

 

Let me try that again.... psychological insight, as best as I can describe it from the context of our conversations is... through reflection we can reveal limiting perspectives and the insight gained from that is really creating a less limiting perspective. And this new perception is built in the reflective mind - so although we are now less limited than before and we have an experience of moving beyond a limiting percpetion, awareness has not moved beyond the reflective state. We have traded one structure of thought for another. And by doing this as one structure is dismantled another (although less limiting) structure is built during the process of revelation- so it will never cultivate awareness beyond the bounds of thinking and reflection (or ego).

 

Where with "practicing awareness" (by returning to present moment awareness - physical senses) - when perceptions rise - we acknowledge this as a form of thought (or another object with in awareness) then perception is traded for awareness/observation - then awareness can build beyond the structures of thought. This is because the perception, prior to acknowledging it as a structure of thought, is the context for observation/awareness. At the moment we acknowledge the perception for what it is (a strucutre of thought) it stops being the context (or boundary) for awareness and becomes an object with in the context of observation (or present moment awareness) - thus awareness can then cultivate beyond the bounds of perception - it transcends.

 

This is not to say that therapy is not helpful or useful it is just different - it is trading one reflective perception for another less limiting reflective perception. By doing this the ego grows in its ability to cope with the world by being able to make connections and association which were not there before and gives the experience of the maliablity of the ego (or impermance of the ego) - but it is still all reflective perception.

 

So through therapy we learn to know about ourselves - while through awareness we get to know self though present moment awareness.

[-O-]

Very well thought out argument. I will simply add that I don't see a difference between therapy and meditation. They are just artificial categorizations. There are methods of therapy that are nearly completely based in mindfullness practice without the analytical component - no tearing down and rebuilding, just observing with a loving attitude and accepting. This is what I practice. We get stuck in thought patterns and images like this. I say therapy and someone imagines Freud. I say meditation and someone imagines lotus position and a mudra. Meditation is not limited to sitting quietly with a quiet mind, that is simply an exercise. Therapy is not necessarily analysis and behavioral modification - hopefully it is healing and becoming whole.

It's very nice to converse with you -O-, and everyone else on this thread.

Thanks for very stimulating reading!

Steve

 

 

 

Thank you too, all of you !!!