Presence meets Ego

[Ulises]

A fresh experiential approach... Inner relationship Focusing (many people from different spiritual paths are using it with great success as an excellent tool for emotional healing)

http://www.focusingresources.com/articles/inner-relationship-focusing.html

http://www.futureprimitive.org/2009/01/radical-acceptance-ann-weiser-cornell/

 

Presence Meets "Ego"

 

by Ann Weiser Cornell

 

What is “ego”? Is “ego” something bad that should be eliminated? I’m hearing this question a lot these days, so I decided to do some research.

 

I discovered that there are two very different definitions of “ego.” The Freudian term “ego” refers to “the organized part of the personality structure” (according to Wikipedia) which includes conscious awareness. Then there is the Buddhist ego, which seems to be what my questioners are wondering about. “Ego, in the Buddhist sense, is quite different from the Freudian ego. The Buddhist ego is a collection of mental events…” (from “An Overview of Buddhism” by Mike Butler)

 

I found a number of writings in which “ego” in the Buddhist sense is treated quite negatively. The message is, this is something you’d be better not to have. For example: “The deepest meaning of ignorance is the believing in, identifying with and clinging to the ego, which as we have seen, is nothing but an illusive mental phenomenon.” (“Ego and Desire,” www.mathri.com)

 

Eckhart Tolle is one of these writers. In his book A New Earth he writes: “The ego tends to equate having with Being: I have, therefore I am. And the more I have, the more I am. The ego lives through comparison. ... The extent of the ego's inability to recognize itself and see what it is doing is staggering and unbelievable.”

 

So, according to these systems, there is something called “the ego” -- and it is spoken of with such disdain and contempt that one naturally concludes the ”ego” is bad and should be eliminated.

 

A Process, not an Entity

 

Now, if you read these writers carefully, you see that none of them actually advocate saying to a part of one’s self, “Bad ego! Go away!” Buddhism has an eightfold path that involves building up positive practices such as right view, right intention, and so on. Tolle recommends an awareness process that emphasizes the present moment. (And he says, for example, “There is nothing you can do to become free of the ego.”)

 

So why is it that when we read these writers we have the strong tendency to treat a part of ourselves as bad and assume that trying to eliminate it would be a good idea?

 

I believe it has to do with the labeling process itself. What is essentially a process has been given a name—a noun, a label. Add the contemptuous tone, and you have a classic “exiling” of an aspect of self.

 

If the problem is labeling, then what is the solution? I’d say we need to shift our language—and the new language brings with it a shift in how we understand, treat, and interact with the phenomenon in question.

 

Rather than saying, “My ego says…” or “That’s just my ego wanting that,” let’s say instead: “Something in me says…” or “Something in me wants…” By saying it this way, we begin to get curious about what is going on with it, from its point of view. We take the first step toward an inner relationship that can lead to its transformation.

 

And if there is some part of us that has an objection to doing that, we can turn with curiosity toward that as well. We may discover that a part of us doesn’t want us to be curious and compassionate toward that part called “ego” because it holds the belief that the “ego” part is incorrigibly, unchangeably bad and wrong. I can’t help but notice how alike that is to some social and political beliefs: “Don’t even talk to that person (or that type of person) because they are [LABEL].” Thus we stay stuck, inwardly and outwardly as well.

 

Fear and Ego

 

I remember hearing a noted New Age author being interviewed on the radio. She said, “Fear is the ego’s way of keeping us small.” From my way of thinking, that sentence contains assumptions that are unlikely to contribute to transformation. In other words: when you see the world that way, you stay stuck.

 

How remarkably everything shifts if, instead of saying “fear,” we say, “Something in me is afraid.” Then we start to get curious about what would happen if we get to know it (this something) better. The same kind of shift happens when we treat “ego” as a process rather than an entity. “Something in me seems to want to keep something in me small.” How interesting! I wonder what’s going on for it, that it would want to do that. (And I won’t find out by reading books or listening to lectures about “ego.” I have to go inside and invite this part into a conversation where I will be the listener… because I don’t know in advance what the answer will be.)

 

Presence and “Ego”

 

Presence, or Self-in-Presence as Barbara McGavin and I are now calling it, is the embodied ability to be in compassionate, curious company with whatever arises in us. “Whatever arises” includes what is called “ego.” As Self-in-Presence we are not judging as bad or good, not evaluating, not labeling. Judging, evaluating, and labeling are “partial-self” experiences that perpetuate the struggle and therefore the stuckness. As Eugene Gendlin puts it, “We think we make ourselves good by not allowing the feeling of our negative ways. But that just keeps them static, the same from year to year.” (Let Your Body Interpret Your Dreams, p. 178)

 

When we’re identified with a part of ourselves that feels the need to judge and label and eliminate other parts, then we are stuck. Tragically, we are behaving in a way that is intended to save us but will not succeed.

 

Please understand: I am not saying that Buddhism leads to being stuck! Our ways of misunderstanding or misapplying it seem to be the problem. There may also be problems with some ways that it is taught, but that is not for me to say.

 

Here is what I do know: Any inner aspect of experience is on our side, trying to help us, no matter how negative it may seem and even be in its current behavior. This includes what is called “ego,” what is called “critic,” and what is called “mind.” It is in the compassionate company of Self-in-Presence that the life-forward energy of any part of us can be tapped into and carried forward.

 

This article appeared in The Focusing Connection, January 2009

Edited January 12, 2011 by Ulises

[Birch]

Thank you for that quote, I found it timely.

 

I wouldn't trust Fr(e)aud as far as I could throw him, nor his daughter, and i sometimes i wonder about Buddhists too.

 

When I wonder about Buddhists, something inside me is scared, scared of what would happen if I stood up and said that I very much doubt their teachings are ultimately in people's best interests.

 

Scared like a very small child would be if she stood up to her father or mother and expressed concern about something not being right. She would be punished for it. So buddhism seems to promote the same fear of authority in me that I experienced long ago. A resonance.

 

Buddhism would say (as far as I know about the teachings) that this fear is stemming from my ego's desire to continue to exist and should be eliminated. If I take your wording. "Something in me desires to continue to exist" well, that clears that problem up pretty nicely :-) Thanks!

 

And if I take it on the other side, Buddhism would teach me that I should kill the thing in me that desires to continue to exist. Huh, like I said, something's wrong there.

 

Anyhoo, besides that, buddhism is a fire practice. And what does fire do? Burns up wood.

I'm a water person and I promote the good of wood

 

Empty cup

 

Edited to add:

 

Blowing the Whistle, Chpt. 1: The Hidden Agenda of Mantra Meditation

 

This is the first chapter in an evolving book, “Blowing the Whistle on Enlightenment: Confessions of a New Age Heretic,” by Bronte Baxter

 

What I expected to see when I came back to the Fairfield scene after 20 years away from Transcendental Meditation was a group of mainstay meditators true-blue to Maharishi and a group of robust dissenters, whose minds questioned everything they learned from their guru days. Instead, I found the true-blue meditators, but not the kind of dissenters I anticipated. I encountered people who had left the TM movement but hadn’t substantially changed their belief system. This latter group had changed in the way that people change hats, or redecorate their homes, leaving unaltered the structure underneath.

 

The dissenters had splintered into a myriad of Eastern or Eastern-related philosophies: Eckhart Tolle, Byron Katie and Andrew Cohen were popular, and Neo-Advaitin gurus had rallied many behind their minimalist philosophy. “Saints” like Ammachi visit Fairfield regularly, dispensing dharshan and picking up new recruits. Across town, small groups meet in “satsangs” to discuss their growing enlightenment or to chant songs to the gods. Heated debate is common between adherents of competing gurus, and people grow vitriolic over whether Maharishi has slept with young women or not. There is a smattering of hedonists and atheists, but ex-TMers in the Fairfield circuit mostly show up with an intact Vedic worldview. That worldview is a lens through which they perceive and measure all gurus and reality itself.

 

I find this disturbing. It’s rather like people who’ve been swindled by a con man, despising him for how they were treated while they continue to invest money in the enterprise he sold them on. Why doesn’t the skepticism extend beyond the procurer, to that which he procured for?

 

And what did Maharishi procure for? The Vedic gods. He sold us a meaningless word that was supposed to guide our minds to transcend superficial consciousness. Later we learned those meaningless words, our mantras, were names of deities. He taught us advanced techniques with the Sanskrit word “namah” at their core: “I bow down.” Mantra meditation is a form of paying worship to those who call themselves gods. When you scrape away all the fancy and misleading explanations – like “meaningless sounds” and “impulses of creative intelligence,” what you get very simply is people with their eyes closed bowing down in their minds to an assigned Hindu deity.

 

Of course we can explain this away using TM explanations, much like the townsfolk explained away the emperor’s nakedness using the reasoning they were fed by the tricksters who paraded him through the town. But the emperor has no clothes. Mantras worship the gods. “Namah” means “bow down.” It’s right there on the surface for anyone to see if we toss out the excuses we were handed and look at the situation with even a shred of unbiased observation.

 

Who are these gods, that we’re so willing to explain away as “impulses of our own consciousness”? The same gods have appeared in other religions and cultures, even in societies that had no contact with each other. They go by different names, but the entities are the same. In Hinduism, you have Indra, god of thunder, ruler of the gods, married to Indrani, queen of the gods, known for her jealousy. In Greek mythology, you have Zeus, god of thunder, ruler of the gods, married to Hera, queen of the gods, known for her jealousy. One-to-one correspondence like this is common. The gods are a global phenomenon, with their imprints on every society.

 

Historically, the gods exacted worship and sacrifice – blood sacrifice commonly, including the murder of humans. While Hinduism has a history of human sacrifice, it has been reduced today to worship of Kali, the goddess with her bloody tongue hanging out, whose body is adorned with a necklace of bleeding, decapitated human heads. Or Shiva, adorned with serpents, who dances on graves. Or Vishnu, whom Arjuna perceived in His cosmic form with pieces of devoured victims’ flesh sticking between his teeth. Gods feed on the energy of suffering, the fearful energy of the victim. In one South American sacrificial ritual, a bull has his throat slit, as slowly as possible. The reasoning given is that the gods cherish “live blood” as the blood with the greatest energy, so the animal must be kept alive while the blood drips from its body. In other words, the greater the fear and suffering of the sacrificial beast, the greater is the pleasure of the gods.

 

The Shrimad-Bhagavatum, among other scriptures, explains the antipathy of the gods for human enlightenment. According to the Vedas and the mythology of other cultures, the gods feel threatened by the human race, afraid mankind might grow as powerful as they. The gods want humans to remain ignorant and “inferior” because if man realized his intrinsic nature as consciousness, he would no longer be subject to deva control. The devas wish us to believe, and have told us throughout scripture, that their divine hands manipulate and guide the laws of nature – creation itself. For this reason we should worship them, chant to them, send them our soma (subtle energy generated in meditation). Because our energy feeds the gods and is needed by them to stay strong and in control of this material dimension. And they wish us to believe that their control is in our best interest.

 

Who would make the rains come or the sun shine if the gods are rightful stewards of those things and we humans didn’t support them? All creation would crumble without the blessing of the gods. That, scriptures tell us, is why we should worship, which is equivalent to paying an energy-tithe. It’s the same reasoning human warlords use against the people they dominate: pay your tax, because you need us; we will protect you. Don’t pay the tax, and we will punish you. The gods threaten to punish, even destroy mankind if he doesn’t bend before their yoke and serve them. They fulfilled that threat in the Great Flood (a story which appears in disparate cultures) and in other visitations of divine vengeance recorded in countless tales throughout cultural history.

 

But really, who are these characters? And do they really exist? The modern mind relegates “gods” to the overactive imaginations of pre-civilized peoples, and in so doing, dismisses the concept. But actually, deities appear in highly civilized early societies, including Sumeria, Babylon, Greece and Egypt. Isn’t it ethnocentric of us to suggest that civilizations capable of constructing the pyramids or accurately charting the course of the stars for centuries into the future, should be dismissed as childlike and ignorant when they write of their experiences with other-worldly beings? Archeologist Zechariah Sitchen, in his voluminous tomes, details the countless references in ancient writings and artifacts to beings who visited this world in fiery flying ships, who taught mankind, interbred with humans, and set up a government of divine-right kingship. Visiting beings who called themselves gods.

 

Kings were considered “sons of the gods,” connected to the deities by bloodline, hence their right to rule. In the Mahabharata, Arjuna’s mother was said to conceive her numerous sons by intercourse with several different deities. The first chapter of Genesis speaks of the Nefelim, a giant race that interbred with early humans. In Egypt, the pharaohs were literally “sons of the gods.” We find stories of gods interbreeding with humans to create a kingly line in Zulu shamanism and in South American Indian lore.

 

Time and again, in culture after culture, the gods appear doing the same things, demanding the same things. Even Christianity springs from a pantheistic tradition: Jehovah was one god among many for the Hebrews. A self-righteous fellow fond of war and genocide, he had to compete with the other local gods for the Hebrews’allegiance. Today, having beat out the competition, revered as “God” by his followers, Jehovah garners the worship not just of Jews but Protestants and Catholics as well.

 

How foolish and arrogant is it to laugh off the existence of a race of beings who appear in the annals of every civilization? I was amazed to see ex-TMers, who spent years feeding soma to devas through chants and mantras, whose walls are still plastered with pictures of Lakshmi, Kali and Shiva, dismiss with a toss of their head the idea that gods might exist as real persons.

 

Who, in truth, are the gods, and what do they want from us? Do “deities” sit at the controls of the universe, managing the laws of nature? Beings with such awesome power that our lives are in their hands? Entities we must never challenge at the risk of losing all we hold dear? I suggest, if the gods are innately as powerful as they purport to be, they would not need human worship to survive. They would be self-sufficient, drawing on the Infinite within them for every need. Instead, they tell mankind to bow down and pay tithe, and threaten in the scriptures to destroy us if we don’t. What kind of power is it, that can’t exist without feeding?

 

It sounds more like psychic enslavement to me. Convince the people whose world you contrive to control that they are powerless without you, that the rains won’t come and the sun will go dark if they don’t please you. Drink their soma, the positive energy of worship, and drink their negative energy, too, when you can incite it and siphon it off. Feed yourself on human astral energy, whatever the quality, and you and your race can control human life as long as the system remains intact. Planetary farming. If anyone starts to wake up a little, divert their efforts at spiritual independence by luring them into mantra meditation.

 

Consider this quote by the currently popular guru, Ramana Maharshi: “Repetition aloud of His name is better than praise. Better still is its faint murmur. But the best is repetition within the mind — and that is meditation. Better than such broken thought is its steady and continuous flow like the flow of oil or of a perennial stream.”

 

Ramana Maharshi’s statement represents mantra meditation’s goal: a state where the mind is timelessly identified with surrender to the name of one’s god – identical with the god himself. The mind itself has become self-negation at the feet of the deity. Empty of original thought and dynamic desire, the “liberated” person’s ego is dissolved: the very thing that made him or her human. All that is left is a mind-body shell, a meat-robot, that moves through life as a surrendered instrument of some greater will. I suggest the greater will is not that of the Infinite. It is the will of the god who has taken the place of one’s mind.

 

Does this sound like possession? It surely appears to be. Think of all the gurus you’ve met with their palpable shakti. An energy so real no one who experiences it can deny it. What is that light in their eye, a light beyond this world? Whose is that power they touch you with, embrace you with? Is it the shakti of Brahman, the light of pure consciousness? Or is it the power of Kali or one of her friends? Gurus often say they are the embodiment of Shiva, Kali, or some other god. Why do we not take them at their word?

 

I would like to suggest that mantra meditation turns humans into zombies who serve the agenda of the gods. That agenda is procurement of more humans and more human energy. This explains the common phenomenon of proselytizing by the religious, including fundamentalist Christians, TMers, and disciples of other varieties. Servants of “God” or the gods feel a driving need to bring in more recruits. The god that moves through them fills them with this zeal, as a hungry stomach fills the mind with an overwhelming need to procure dinner.

 

There are no gods, in the sense the gods would have us think of them. No one has been designated by the Infinite to control creation and administer the laws of nature. The sun shines by itself as an entity with its own consciousness. The rain and wind don’t need a god to direct them; they move where they will in harmony with their fellow elements. All things are children of the Infinite, spirits or egos in their own unique right, expressing in physical form and also in astral dimensions.

 

The gods are spirits/egos like everybody else. Most of the time they dwell on astral planes, which is why human senses normally don’t perceive them. According to ancient records, they have visited the earth in ages past in physical forms of their own, as entities from the stars.

 

They are no more divine than a ghost, no more cosmic than you or I, and no more entitled or intended to run the universe than any other gang of warlords might be. Somehow they’ve gained control of this planet, and have held that control at least since the beginning of recorded human history. But that is no reason to think the Infinite wants it that way, or that life needs to continue that way.

 

True empowerment is not the Indian concept of enlightenment. It is knowing what we are and living from there. We are spirit: individual and eternal, moving within the consciousness of That which created, sustains and pervades all life. Knowing this is not difficult. It only requires putting attention on that which is beneath the content of thought. Acting from this place of empowerment is natural: we can ordain reality from that quantum level. Everyone can do it. Everyone is equally powerful moving and creating in the depths of their own consciousness.

 

Unfortunately, people rarely do that, though, as the mass hypnosis that governs human life convinces us that karma, fate or the will of God runs the world, that we as individuals have little direct control over what happens to us. The gods are the purveyors of this global hypnosis. It serves their agenda of control. True liberation does not mean rising above the illusion of ourselves as egos. It means rising above the illusion that as egos we are cut off from the powerhouse of creation. That as individuals we are something less than pure, eternal, powerful spirits – in our own right, very much gods. Gods with a global case of amnesia.

 

The “enlightened” have surrendered their personhood to the deities who control their meditations. Their bliss is the euphoric stupor which their appeased deities grant them as reward. The words, the thoughts, the desires of the enlightened are not their own any longer, but those of their controlling god. The word “zombie” is appropriate because of its meaning as the walking dead.

 

But all is not lost for such people. No one can keep the human soul enslaved against its will. An act of personal empowerment, of willfully recalling one’s ego, must surely destroy enslavement by any possessing entity. One can recall surrendered pieces of one’s being as a magnet can recall iron filings. Native American traditions speak of our ability to do just this, calling back the parts of our lost personhood.

 

When people cease to surrender their energy and spirit to those who call themselves gods, the deceivers will lose their power over this dimension. They will shrink back to “normal size,” entities responsible for themselves like everybody else. Our world will know a freedom, creativity, harmony and joy it has never demonstrated in its history, because interdimensional manipulation will cease. The suffering on this planet, god-inspired and god-feeding, will dwindle and disappear. The need to kill to eat will no longer exist. Sickness, aging and death will have no substructure. Each wonderful created being – animal, human or astral – will thrive on the power of the Infinite source within itself, and victim/tyrant relationships, which ran the planet for eons, will fade into thin air. Living will become what surely the Infinite intended in Its original vision for the universe: a symphony of minds, not a competition; a tapestry of spirits, not a hierarchy; a garden of consciousness, not a painful struggle.

 

When I hear “the enlightened” excuse all the atrocities of this world by saying that in their exalted perception, everything is “perfect” just as it is, I hear “fraud.” The God I perceive in the depths of my being is not a God who is content with fathers raping infants, animals being ripped apart alive, or human sorrow so great only suicide can quell it. This kind of world is not perfect, and anyone who sees it as such has something seriously wrong with them. If the gods were really beneficent and powerful, they would not operate a world that runs like this. When their mouthpieces and procurers tell us this world is just as it should be – that shows you the true nature of the gods.

 

These beings are not our friends, though surely, if there are scoundrels in astral dimensions, there must be virtuous entities there as well. Perhaps the ones who don’t seek lordship over this planet are watching to see if humans take back control of our world or continue to surrender it, piece by piece, to the cosmic band of thugs who want to own it. Will we continue surrendering our governments, media, schools, workplaces, taxes and spirituality to those who would lead us farther away from personal freedom and self-actualization, closer to a world without responsibility, originality or joy? Such a world is the goal of the gods, because it’s more controllable.

 

Their lackeys in the political arena (many – George Bush, for instance – are genetically linked to European royal families and the god-engendered lines of divine-right kings) call this future society the New World Order. Centralized control, humans functioning on autopilot. The death of free will, passion, desire and originality – sounds a lot like enlightenment, doesn’t it. The surrender of the individual to the collective. Control of the collective by divine-right rulers, and control of those rulers by the cosmic band of thugs themselves. The rise of the great Fourth Reich.

 

Who were the mystical entities Hitler conversed with and took guidance from? Why was group meditation a part of Nazi protocol? Why were many TM/ New Age slogans (“established in Being, perform action,” for instance) also slogans of the Third Reich?

 

Total control and spiritual domination. The destruction of everything that makes life worth living. Creation imploding on itself, like a snake swallowing its tail. That actually is a symbol found in mystery schools, which were controlled by the gods.

 

It’s time to give up beads and mantras, chanting and bowing down to dirty feet. It’s time to fire the gurus, stand up and be the powerful, sublime individuals we are. It’s time to question the dogmas we swallowed whole from Vedic tradition and take a closer look at what is happening when we meditate.

 

It’s time to reclaim our birthright, our divinity and this Earth. Only we can do it, as the conscious beings we are. As Alice in Wonderland said, turning and facing the Red Queen’s army that was hot on her heels, “Pooh! You’re nothing but a pack of old cards.” That army toppled, turning into a heap of playing cards the moment the girl broke through her bad dream. Our controllers too will topple, and dragons will turn into geckos. It’s time to give up the cosmic illusion and de-hypnotize.

 

Bronte Baxter

 

© Bronte Baxter 2008

 

from

http://brontebaxter.wordpress.com/mantra-meditation-reveals-a-hidden-agenda-are-the-gods-alive-and-well-and-working-towards-the-new-world-order/

Edited January 14, 2011 by Kate

[Jetsun]

Yes this is the approach I have had to learn the hard way, by changing your way of looking at things by saying "something inside of me is scared" or angry it widens your identity so what you are dealing with is less overwhelming which allows space for more compassion.

 

When it comes to Buddhism I think there is sometimes a misunderstanding around the word ego as the western mind has been influenced to view it in a different way than what is intended in Buddhist texts, my favourite master Gurdjieff realised the complication this would cause and instead completely made up his own word for it to avoid old associations interfering with understanding. But I think it is a wrong view to say Buddhism is completely against ego as such, I have heard the Dalai Lama talk about "good ego" on a few occasions.

[Marblehead]

... I have heard the Dalai Lama talk about "good ego" on a few occasions.

 

And I feel more people should speak more frequently on this concept.

[三江源]

.

Edited March 23, 2015 by 三江源

[三江源]

.

Edited March 23, 2015 by 三江源

[Jetsun]

Gosh, Ulises. I find that a truly cringeworthy article.

 

Is it from a popular women's mag or something?

 

The approach in it is so far from fresh and new that I'm thinking it has to be. Maybe fresh and new for people who are mainly on the lookout recipes and slimming advice?!!

 

I'm sure you had a valid point to make. What was it? That people are reactive about the term 'ego' and rush into dualistic self judgement when the very idea of working on their ego crops up?

 

It's more warm fuzzy for some people to say 'working on a part of myself' .... instead?

 

How about working on the fundamental misconception about what ego means when it is used by these teachers who arent teaching it nicely enough, with no tea or biscuits, and why dont they wear a nice cardigan with it, and maybe a little bit of Enya would be just right, now..?

 

Perhaps Focusing appears like popular new age psychology but I think it tackles working with emotional states quite well. Often the issue with troublesome emotional issues is that you get completely identified with them so you say "I am anxious" or "I am depressed" so the whole of your identity and all the energy that entails is taken up by it. So to counter that some people try to use mindfulness or witnessing of states so you can look at it and say it's not me, but it is common for people to try use this as a form of dissociation so they get nowhere. Focusing uses the middle ground in that you expand your awareness to say that it exists but it is not all of you, so you are not completely identified with it but also not dissociating from it. The language you use is very important to set the emotional tone to allow compassion to come in.

[Marblehead]

And Cat said: Ego isnt 'good' or 'bad', it just IS.

 

 

See? My feelings materialized.

 

At least one person spoke more to the concept.

Edited January 14, 2011 by Marblehead

[三江源]

.

Edited March 23, 2015 by 三江源

[三江源]

.

Edited March 23, 2015 by 三江源

[Marblehead]

I am at least one person, this is true.

 

 

 

Hehehe. I hope you are not two or more.

[gendao]

Presence, or Self-in-Presence as Barbara McGavin and I are now calling it, is the embodied ability to be in compassionate, curious company with whatever arises in us. “Whatever arises” includes what is called “ego.” As Self-in-Presence we are not judging as bad or good, not evaluating, not labeling. Judging, evaluating, and labeling are “partial-self” experiences that perpetuate the struggle and therefore the stuckness. As Eugene Gendlin puts it, “We think we make ourselves good by not allowing the feeling of our negative ways. But that just keeps them static, the same from year to year.” (Let Your Body Interpret Your Dreams, p. 178)

The "ego," or the illusion of "you" as a separate individual, is the ultimate root of all suffering. Enlightenment is seeing through that illusion - in effect, the "death" of the "ego." Which is essentially the goal of Buddhism.

 

Once enlightened, there may still be "suffering"...but there is no longer "anyone" who is suffering. Everything becomes impersonal. Hence, it no longer matters what is happening anymore...as it is not happening to "anyone." So, how can you have suffering...if there are no sufferers?

 

Steven Norquist has some great material on all this...

Edited January 14, 2011 by vortex

[Easy]

A few short thoughts on this thread.

 

1. Cat wrote:

Is it from a popular women's mag or something?

 

I think it is always good to do a little research before shooting from the hip. The article in question is from a web site for the author's patented brand of psychotherapy, which tends toward the self-help style. But examination of the site shows the author was inspired by the work of Eugene Gendlin, philosopher, theoretical psychologist and one of the last living colleagues of Carl Rogers. Here is a link to one of Gendlin's essays that shows that his "focusing" process rises little higher level than a superficial, popular magazine. I think some parallels can be drawn between this work and the old Taoist admonition to "Empty the head and fill the belly." Often that is translated as "empty the mind..." But I think that is in error because as anyone with half their wits about them know by now the belly is just as much a part of the mind (if not more so?) as the brain.

 

2. As far as translations go, I think it is a grave error to translate the Buddhist concept of unenlightened and predominating self-interest into one English word, "ego," given the fact that Freud, Jung, et al, had a lock on the English meaning of the word long before Buddhism became a popular entertainment in the English speaking world. The Buddhist concept might be a little closer to Freud's idea of ego than Jung's.The western definition of ego from the article above seems to be derived from Jung's concept.

 

BTW, I disagree with the statement that ego is neither bad nor good, which sounds the equivalent of saying "arms are neither bad nor good." Remember statements regarding a cripple: "She only had one good leg." Without one good ego we would all be operating at the level of slugs.

 

3. Vortex wrote

The "ego," or the illusion of "you" as a separate individual, is the ultimate root of all suffering. Enlightenment is seeing through that illusion - in effect, the "death" of the "ego." Which is essentially the goal of Buddhism.

 

Once enlightened, there may still be "suffering"...but there is no longer "anyone" who is suffering.

 

I am not convinced enlightenment comes that easily: Any one who has delved very deeply into the concepts behind the simple word, "Intersubjectivity," or can see at least a little validity in Physicalist theories of mind can be pretty well assured that no one in the world is a separate individual. I know that. But am I enlightened? Hardly. And does that knowledge end the suffering of my No I? Hardly. But then I only suffer when I read tautologies like those found in the Vortex post.

Edited January 14, 2011 by Easy

[三江源]

.

Edited March 23, 2015 by 三江源

[johndoe2012]

Thank you for that quote, I found it timely.

 

I wouldn't trust Fr(e)aud as far as I could throw him, nor his daughter, and i sometimes i wonder about Buddhists too.

 

When I wonder about Buddhists, something inside me is scared, scared of what would happen if I stood up and said that I very much doubt their teachings are ultimately in people's best interests.

 

Where do you get this idea from?

 

Buddhism for me is about practical methods to achieve awakening and stop suffering at the core. I'm not sure what precisely in the results of Buddhist practise you dislike?

 

At a practical level it just about seeing the world objectively instead of getting attached to your experiences.

 

Buddhism would say (as far as I know about the teachings) that this fear is stemming from my ego's desire to continue to exist and should be eliminated. If I take your wording. "Something in me desires to continue to exist" well, that clears that problem up pretty nicely :-) Thanks!

 

There are no authorities in Buddhism. What you perceive is your reality just as it is not as it should be.

 

Regarding the article: Anatta (no-self) is the correct term and not ego. Personally I find my own limited experience of no-self is that I'm not separate from the world. I'm just a bunch of vibrations and sensations arise without my doing so they cannot be me, whatever "me" means.

[Otis]

I know a bunch of zen guys who kept on about how we must "kill" the ego. But then they'd also say that the ego doesn't exist. So what is it that y'all wanted to kill?

 

Saying the ego doesn't exist is also kind of fallacious; obviously, something is going on. But, as the OP article points out: ego/self (like thoughts) can be process, rather than entity. It's like waves on the ocean; the wave exists, but only as an energetic function of/through the actual substance, water.

 

"Killing" the ego always sounds like spiritual violence to me. Why is it that we're asked to accept the world in every moment, but also asked to kill part of ourselves?

 

To me, the only reasonable way of looking at it, is to "kill the illusion", rather than "kill the ego". Let go of the idea that these voices in my head are me (as opposed to just one function of me), or that there is anything more than a perceived need that these voices should be "right" (or that my sense of self needs to be defended).

 

In fact, "grow a sense of humor about my internal world" seems like a much more reasonable way of approaching the question than trying to kill anything. Surrender of the importance of my thoughts.

[johndoe2012]

And if I take it on the other side, Buddhism would teach me that I should kill the thing in me that desires to continue to exist. Huh, like I said, something's wrong there.

 

Source, please?

 

It doesn't sound like Buddhism to me.

[suninmyeyes]

As cat said earlier ego isnt good or bad.It just is,it makes me a person.

Who can get rid of ego?Or kill ego?There is no logic really.From where is the ego killed?By whom or what?Is there a secret ego assasin hiding somwhere in concept of ego life?In my opinion only the ego can pretend to kill the ego.Maybe it would be more accurate to say higher ego gets rid of lower ego

Edited January 14, 2011 by suninmyeyes

[Vajrahridaya]

Source, please?

 

It doesn't sound like Buddhism to me.

 

Kate has a view of Buddhism that is completely her own. She's been at it for a while, no matter how many times her wrong view has been corrected through scriptural reference and the shared understanding of Buddhists, she doesn't let go of her Nihilistic view of Buddhist teaching, of which there is no reference for within the Buddhist Cannon.

 

Buddhism teaches the transformation of the self, from being locked in personal encaged reference to referencing the all, which is self inclusive.

 

Buddhism teaches the relativity of the self, and the lack of ultimate, static nature, revealing that you, yourself are completely malleable and able to change and transform, from bound to free.

 

There is no Nihilism inherent in the teachings of the Buddha, and he in fact eschewed Nihilism and called it an extreme view that has no business in Buddhist philosophy or psychology.

 

But, most Eternalists, who are deeply conditioned by Eternalism, or the notion of a permanent self out of fear, will initially project Nihilism onto Buddhism when they first come across the teaching. Of course, this is done out of a complete misunderstanding of the teaching. I used to do this myself. I used to project Nihilism onto Buddhism, as I was deeply conditioned by Theism before I took refuge in the 3 jewels. It took some direct intuitive experiences of the meaning of dependent origination/emptiness to reveal where in my subconscious I was projecting this mis-assumption of Nihilism onto the Buddhadharma.

 

It took a number of years.

[Vajrahridaya]

As catsaid earlier ego isnt good or bad.It just is,it makes me.

Who can get rid of ego?Or kill ego?There is no logic really.From where is the ego killed?By whom or what?Is there a secret ego assasin hiding somwhere in concept of ego life?In my opinion only the ego can pretend to kill the ego.Maybe it would be more accurate to say higher ego gets rid of lower ego

 

I think it's more about transformation, or liberating the ego from itself, or turning it into an agent of the greater good for all, rather than it's own personal cravings that arise out of the suffering inherent in the experience of separation from everything.

 

It all depends upon how you define ego. If you consider it a concept referencing limited self identity, then yes... that does die when one attains enlightenment. The death of the ego is explained by many mystics as a direct experience that happens in meditation. That you actually experience your own death in meditation and might even release your bowels and bladder contents, and then come back to life, now free from the fear of death, as the ego or limited self reference ceases to exist in one's own psyche.

[Vajrahridaya]

Thank you for that quote, I found it timely.

 

I wouldn't trust Fr(e)aud as far as I could throw him, nor his daughter, and i sometimes i wonder about Buddhists too.

 

When I wonder about Buddhists, something inside me is scared, scared of what would happen if I stood up and said that I very much doubt their teachings are ultimately in people's best interests.

 

Scared like a very small child would be if she stood up to her father or mother and expressed concern about something not being right. She would be punished for it. So buddhism seems to promote the same fear of authority in me that I experienced long ago. A resonance.

 

Buddhism would say (as far as I know about the teachings) that this fear is stemming from my ego's desire to continue to exist and should be eliminated. If I take your wording. "Something in me desires to continue to exist" well, that clears that problem up pretty nicely :-) Thanks!

 

And if I take it on the other side, Buddhism would teach me that I should kill the thing in me that desires to continue to exist. Huh, like I said, something's wrong there.

 

Actually Kate, Buddhists would say that this fear arises from your primal attachment to limited self reference. There is no ceasing to exist in Buddhism. You never "cease" to exist as there is no such thing as non-existence, there is only transmutation, or transformation, expansion or contraction. Your contraction, or "fear" arises dependent upon a subtle obscuration in your psyche that say's, "I am Kate and that's all that I am." Even if you don't believe this philosophically, the psychological attachment runs very, very deep. I know, because I've run into that fear plenty of times during my spiritual studies and meditations.

 

Buddhism in it's philosophy of dependent origination/emptiness reveals how deeply flawed this attachment to limited self reference is, and this is the fear that is arising inside you, as it's fighting for it's own survival, when it never truly existed to begin with. You were never limited, never small, never going to die, because you were never born. There has always been existence and you have always been a part of it, even before you were seemingly born as Kate, throughout many, many lives.

 

Basically Kate, your objection to Buddhism is arising dependent upon your misunderstanding of the source of fear inside your mind/body complex. This fear, is basically fighting for it's life by objecting to the fear killing teachings of Buddhism.

 

If you want a definition of the ego... one could say it's "fear." Fear itself is the ego. Once fear is gone, no more limited self reference, no more blocked love, no more lack of compassion, no more lack of insight, no more contracted response habit patterns on this board or in life situations.

 

More of the quote on the bottom of this post...

[suninmyeyes]

I think it's more about transformation, or liberating the ego from itself, or turning it into an agent of the greater good for all, rather than it's own personal cravings that arise out of the suffering inherent in the experience of separation from everything.

 

It all depends upon how you define ego. If you consider it a concept referencing limited self identity, then yes... that does die when one attains enlightenment. The death of the ego is explained by many mystics as a direct experience that happens in meditation. That you actually experience your own death in meditation and might even release your bowels and bladder contents, and then come back to life, now free from the fear of death, as the ego or limited self reference ceases to exist in one's own psyche.

Ok expiriencing death is done through the ego.Expiriencing or remebering that death .What I am saying someone may be great saint and mystic but some ego must be present (IMO)if they are here on the earth plane.Even small amount .

But yeah ,transformation ,not killing -sounds better.

[Vajrahridaya]

Ok expiriencing death is done through the ego.Expiriencing or remebering that death .What I am saying someone may be great saint and mystic but some ego must be present (IMO)if they are here on the earth plane.Even small amount .

But yeah ,transformation ,not killing -sounds better.

 

Actually, the personal mind stream will still manifest itself in other dimensions beyond this Earth plane, even if you are enlightened and especially if you are enlightened, you will have lucid awareness of this process.

 

But yes, as you are defining ego... I would also say, transformation.

 

The term "ego" is somewhat ominous and it's definition seems to change from psychology to psychology. Some just call it, the sense of I, and others call it, the sense of I am this.

 

I feel an enlightened being both sees through his/her I and I am this-ness, yet embraces it at the same time, from an expanded sense of reference rather than a contracted sense of "I am limited by what seems to be me."

Edited January 14, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Easy]

No, without one functioning ego that would happen. It doesnt have to be designated as 'good'.. merely 'functional".

 

Well, damn it all! It looks like I was being too droll again, or too stingy with the smilies, such that those of a now evident high erudition didn't get my play on the ambiguity of the word, "good." However, the discussion might be taken further given the good/bad polarity might be applied to the functional/dysfunctional dichotomy. I would think any therapist could see.... mmmmm, never mind.

 

BTW, I am a little confused. cat, at one point you write:

It isnt me you are disagreeing with, but Jung and any or all psychologists.

 

But above that you wrote:

I have studied Carl Rogers and am actually a qualified Rogerian therapist...

 

and a little later you refer to your Jungian training. Now after having lived 11 years with someone who had, more or less, the same credentials as you, I am wondering why they called themselves a psychologist (a professional title tied to licensing regs and all) and you apparently do not call yourself a psychologist since I am not disagreeing with you, but with "any and all psychologists."

 

So, do you no longer work in that racket and if so, why did you write: "I...am actually (lets hope not fictionally) a Rogerian etc. etc. etc?"

 

Please enlighten.

[Birch]

Big problem right there Mr VJ. You spoke about me, and not on my behalf. If your dogma is to hold, you ought to let me "dependently originate" wherever that happens to be the case. And I am, in fact, from here on in, utterly non-dependent upon your arising

 

I'm guessing you're too deep in to care.

 

Sad. You could have been a neat guy.

 

Wishing you health, happiness and peace and :-( too