Misguided views about Enlightenment

[Perceiver]

I often see what I believe are misguided views about Enlightenment.

People sometimes believe that doing "normal stuff" is always and in every way ego-driven.

So if you want to buy a new house that would be ego. Desiring a girlfriend is ego. Wanting a new job is ego. Anything that you "want" is inherently ego.

Well, maybe that is true, but that also raises the question; what is Enlightenment then, and what is ego and to which extent is ego necessary and unavoidable?

Here are my thoughts:

It's never really the thing - it's how you relate to the thing.

There is nothing wrong with choosing to manifest in life and do the things that you find meaningful in a moment of reality that you co-create.

 

We all live. We don't not-live.

 

We need to relate to the life and reality that is.

 

Relating to that in a healthy way is seemingly to live, co-create and co-manifest the things that we believe make sense.

Manifesting that which you intentionally believe - from a ground of intentional choice - is not inherently bad. It is not negative ego. It is what you choose to create in the reality that is. That's what life is seemingly about.

Is that ego? Well, maybe not. It's never really the thing itself - it's how you relate to the thing.

Wanting a girlfriend because you hate to be lonely is ego. Wanting a girlfriend because you have an intentional desire to meet a person with whom you can connect, learn from and co-create a higher mutual experience of spiritual progress, is not necessarily ego. It is an intentional and pure desire to manifest something that is true, beautiful and good for both of you.

The same goes for a new house or a career: From which level does the need come? What is it based on? This is what determines whether it's ego or not.

And this of course raises the inevitable question; what is ego?

Well, wanting to "destroy your ego" is ego itself.

Trying to transcend the need for love and relationships is ego too.

Trying desperately to transcend the need for sex is ego too. And I just don't think such strategies work.

Instead, it might be better to understand the aforementioned needs from the inside out; why do you desire sex, for example? From what level does the need come from? Is it based on an honest desire to meet and have sexual relations with a women you genuinely like. Or are you.. well.. wanting to torpedo-fuck every half-attractive girl out there?

If it's the latter option, well that seems very much like a desire-driven need for sexual conquest and domination. Doesn't seem so rational to me.

 

Are you getting lots of that? I sure as hell am not. And when I realized this I also realized the inherent irrationality of that desire: I was spending hours fantasizing about sex that I would never get anyway. That's when I started to abandon and transcend that need; because I understood it from the inside out and realized the irrationality of its nature. Suppressing or "escaping" it never really worked (you can never escape a thought, but you can understand it).

So what is ego? Well, that depends on the level that your desires are coming from.

Or perhaps it may be that some aspect of ego is just an unavoidable part of what it is to be human.

I recently saw a much celebrated and seemingly spiritually advanced person get himself into a political argument. He got so emotional, insisted on his own truth and did not see the truth in his opponent's view. Seems like ego to me too.

And we're all sitting here on Daobums, reading posts and enjoying it; writing our own posts and caring about them, wanting people to recognize their truth-avalue. Seems like ego to me too.

 

And I'm not sure that's negative at all; it all depends on the level from which our desires are coming. Do we desperately need people to like our posts, and do we feel resentment towards those that disagree with us? Or do we put our ideas out there with a smile, hope the world benefits from them and rejoice at the feedback we get?

 

Dat was all from me my friends.

 

Would love to hear your thoughts on this (ego-alert, and non-ego alert, hehe).
 

[Marblehead]

Nice post.

 

Have I mentioned recently that I love my ego?

[C T]

Sometimes when i do a certain practice, there is a goal in mind for doing that specific practice. If i attain that goal, it gives me a sense of achievement and gratification; if i don't, i get cheesed off and this trickles into and affects the rest of my activities and affects the people around me. If i am able to catch myself in time and arrest that potentially harmful spiral before it goes all big and ugly, its good; if not, i usually end up beating myself at the end of that particular episode. 

 

Therefore, having a design for attaining certain things, imo, is not ego. Wanting to do well in life is not ego. Desiring peace and fulfilment is not ego. How we deal with the reverberations if we don't get these things, or fall short of the numerous expectations we place around our goals is the determining factor that dictates whether we become victims or victors. This particular pathway is an ego-based process - the problem of confusion arise when one identifies and fixate on the idea of being somehow a maker or doer of that process - then repercussions (karmic follow-ons) become a natural part of this identification. When we cease to identify ourselves as the doer, and merely recognise that there is a whole integrated process occurring, then we can remove the cause of fixation and identification, and thus remove the potential for contractions on the level of body, speech and mind. Removing the cause is exactly the same as creating the result. Where there is no contraction, expansion (which gives rise to joy, equanimity, compassion etc) arise as a natural, effortless outflow of that. But people don't quite get this because mostly their focus (arising from the natural tendency to fixate and cling to things) is on creating result, and not removing the causes. The former would be akin to being a victim of ego; the latter, a victor of it. But in truth, ego is not anything substantial which exists as tangible force unless our cravings get so overwhelmingly powerful that we have no choice but to imagine some entity has been made to come alive and is exerting an immense force that paralyses us into hopelessness. This feeling is what some identify as 'ego'. 

 

pardon my afternoon ramble 

[Marblehead]

Hi C T,

 

After removing the Buddhist overtones I found that to be a rather excellent post.

[C T]

Hi C T,

 

After removing the Buddhist overtones I found that to be a rather excellent post.

Its merely your imagination, MH... there were no Buddhist overtones in that ramble. 

Edited March 15, 2015 by C T

[3bob]

as for one's own ego, it's to clever for most to see completely - for only spirit can see through it.  

Edited March 19, 2015 by 3bob

[forestofclarity]

I think it's easy to "spiritualize" one's desires so that they appear to be higher, greater, or better than ordinary desires. Calvinists did this with earning wealth. In traditional Christianity, poverty was considered a great virtue. Calvinists essentially turned this on its head. Wealth, they taught, was a mark that you were one of God's elect. So to be rich was actually a sign of high spiritual favor. I think one can rationalize any action as spiritual. 

 

In some Eastern traditions, the defining mark of enlightenment is the mark of freedom. The question isn't whether one is a success, whether one has an ego or not, or whether one has achieved a thoughtless state. The question is whether one can be free: with thoughts or without; with ego or without; with success or without. 

  

The reason for this is simple: conditions are constantly changing. If we tie our happiness to conditions, then our happiness will come and go. If we can find happiness independent of conditions, that is true happiness. 

[Nikolai1]

Hi Perceiver

 

Wanting a girlfriend because you hate to be lonely is ego. Wanting a girlfriend because you have an intentional desire to meet a person with whom you can connect, learn from and co-create a higher mutual experience of spiritual progress, is not necessarily ego. 

 

There is no clear cut distinction between ego and true self - spiritual growth is simply the morphing of the ego into a sense of self that is wider. more peaceful, more wise.  So in that sense the ego never disappears.

 

In your example. both of these different desires for a girlfriend are egoic, insofar as they are less than enlightened.  But, I agree, that the second desire is characteristic of more spiritual wisdom than the first,

 

But it is still the case that there comes a time when you are left with absolutely no need for anything on the outside - whether it be wise soul mate, a Ferrari or a line of coke.  It is from this perspective that, as you say:

 

People sometimes believe that doing "normal stuff" is always and in every way ego-driven.

 

One thing that often occurs to me is that the feeling of deep spiritual peace and joy is exactly the same as what we often get in the everyday world.  It is like our egoic pleasures are just briefer lasting precursors to true pleasure, which comes regardless of anything on the outside to cause it.

 

So that begs the question: who is it that recognises all these pleasures? This is the true self, that sees the spiritual in all things, and to whom no pleasure could ever be considered wrong, harmful or unspiritual.

 

So, to sum up, we can argue that all external pleasures fall short of enlightenment and that when we have enlightenment we are satisfied, Or, we can argue that all external pleasures are already being enjoyed by our enlightened self.

 

Which is true?

 

Well, all I can say from personal experience is that as we grow spiritually are desires change.  It is a psychological truth that we cease wanting what we once wanted because we no longer need what it had to offer. Not that the former pleasures were wrong, but just because they don't work for us anymore.

[3bob]

Nikolai1,

I can dig a lot of what you said above and your insights but I would disagree with your apparent summation that, "there is no clear cut distinction between ego and true self"... being that ego has a birth and a death whereas for the true Self: "Neti, Neti"

[Nikolai1]

Nikolai1,

I can dig a lot of what you said above and your insights but I would disagree with your apparent summation that, "there is no clear cut distinction between ego and true self"... being that ego has a birth and a death whereas for the true Self: "Neti, Neti"

 

Logically speaking, yes, the ego and the true self are polar opposites. In fact, each is defined through contradistinction to the other - like up is defined by down, or right by left.

 

But in real life experience this logical split is nowhere to be seen.  We are not living through the ego one moment, and from the higher self the next.  Each moment is the same.  Spiritual realisation is realising without a shadow of a doubt that the divisions that make sense logically, have no meaning in experience.

 

Realisation is realising that we were always realised!

 

The ego, our individual self, is another fine example of our spiritual grandeur.  Each moment is an enlightenment moment.  Nothing is excluded.  There is nowhere to go, nothing to do.

 

At first this is a seriously depressing prospect, but we have to stick with it.

 

Imagine the average Christian being told that they are already saved, that Jesus has atoned, that there is nothing else they need to do.

 

They'd hate you for saying it! What would they do with themselves?

 

Well were all in the same boat.

[Marblehead]

... being that ego has a birth and a death whereas for the true Self: "Neti, Neti"

To die yet not be forgotten; that is true long life.

[Marblehead]

 

Well were all in the same boat.

I don't need a boat; I have learned to walk on water.

[3bob]

I'd say that "Neti, Neti" is not defined as a polar opposite; also 99.99% of our "real life experiences" are relative - being that 99.99% of us are relatively identified with this or that which is not what Neti, Neti is pointing to.

[3bob]

hey MH did you get on one of those water-jet devices? not only can you walk on water with those but also jump on it...hehe

[Nikolai1]

3bob

 

 

I'd say that "Neti, Neti" is not defined as a polar opposite;

 

Neti Neti is a mere teaching.  It is what teachers say in desperation to anyone who tries to find realisation in any particular place.  The teacher may find himself saying Neti Neti for eternity and yet still it is a verbal distinction - an attempt to logically negate the particular.

[3bob]

most all words are mere (and or conceptual) teachings excepting when they are also empowered by more than just conceptual thinking or logical reasoning... thus a teacher living in and speaking from such empowerment would not fit into your apparent and general dismissal. 

Edited March 19, 2015 by 3bob

[dwai]

I often see what I believe are misguided views about Enlightenment.

 

People sometimes believe that doing "normal stuff" is always and in every way ego-driven.

 

So if you want to buy a new house that would be ego. Desiring a girlfriend is ego. Wanting a new job is ego. Anything that you "want" is inherently ego.

 

Well, maybe that is true, but that also raises the question; what is Enlightenment then, and what is ego and to which extent is ego necessary and unavoidable?

 

Here are my thoughts:

 

It's never really the thing - it's how you relate to the thing.

 

There is nothing wrong with choosing to manifest in life and do the things that you find meaningful in a moment of reality that you co-create.

 

We all live. We don't not-live.

 

We need to relate to the life and reality that is.

 

Relating to that in a healthy way is seemingly to live, co-create and co-manifest the things that we believe make sense.

 

Manifesting that which you intentionally believe - from a ground of intentional choice - is not inherently bad. It is not negative ego. It is what you choose to create in the reality that is. That's what life is seemingly about.

 

Is that ego? Well, maybe not. It's never really the thing itself - it's how you relate to the thing.

 

Wanting a girlfriend because you hate to be lonely is ego. Wanting a girlfriend because you have an intentional desire to meet a person with whom you can connect, learn from and co-create a higher mutual experience of spiritual progress, is not necessarily ego. It is an intentional and pure desire to manifest something that is true, beautiful and good for both of you.

 

The same goes for a new house or a career: From which level does the need come? What is it based on? This is what determines whether it's ego or not.

 

And this of course raises the inevitable question; what is ego?

 

Well, wanting to "destroy your ego" is ego itself.

 

Trying to transcend the need for love and relationships is ego too.

 

Trying desperately to transcend the need for sex is ego too. And I just don't think such strategies work.

 

Instead, it might be better to understand the aforementioned needs from the inside out; why do you desire sex, for example? From what level does the need come from? Is it based on an honest desire to meet and have sexual relations with a women you genuinely like. Or are you.. well.. wanting to torpedo-fuck every half-attractive girl out there?

 

If it's the latter option, well that seems very much like a desire-driven need for sexual conquest and domination. Doesn't seem so rational to me.

 

Are you getting lots of that? I sure as hell am not. And when I realized this I also realized the inherent irrationality of that desire: I was spending hours fantasizing about sex that I would never get anyway. That's when I started to abandon and transcend that need; because I understood it from the inside out and realized the irrationality of its nature. Suppressing or "escaping" it never really worked (you can never escape a thought, but you can understand it).

 

So what is ego? Well, that depends on the level that your desires are coming from.

 

Or perhaps it may be that some aspect of ego is just an unavoidable part of what it is to be human.

 

I recently saw a much celebrated and seemingly spiritually advanced person get himself into a political argument. He got so emotional, insisted on his own truth and did not see the truth in his opponent's view. Seems like ego to me too.

 

And we're all sitting here on Daobums, reading posts and enjoying it; writing our own posts and caring about them, wanting people to recognize their truth-avalue. Seems like ego to me too.

 

And I'm not sure that's negative at all; it all depends on the level from which our desires are coming. Do we desperately need people to like our posts, and do we feel resentment towards those that disagree with us? Or do we put our ideas out there with a smile, hope the world benefits from them and rejoice at the feedback we get?

 

Dat was all from me my friends.

 

Would love to hear your thoughts on this (ego-alert, and non-ego alert, hehe).

 

Ego is an integral part of our dualistic existence. As long as we have to function in this dualistic world, we need an "I"  (varies from I need to eat, drink, to I need to wear clothes, have shelter, etc at the very least).

 

My teacher told me "Ego is a tool that can be used productively. The key is to not let Ego control you...but you have to control Ego". Even with spiritual attainment, the Ego grows commensurate to the spiritual progress. The opposite of the "I am nothing to become everything" paradigm is the "I become everything to become nothing" paradigm. Instead of negating our existence, a good way is to expand our existence - so everything is a part of me, and I am part of everything else. So much so that compassion develops for everything and everyone. But that's not the way for everyone...imho.

[4bsolute]

ego

 

 

is all that there is, aside pure consciousness.

 

there are extreme ways of ego and there are okay ways of ego and there are ways of the ego which strives for holism.

 

holism would be everything and nothing at the same time. without ego, there would be no creation.

 

The entire I am experience, is ego.

 

 

I wanted to write the above and you see I actually did. But everytime I find myself wanting to debate what is ego and what not, a silent knowing overcomes me and just wants to delete it. Not because it could be / is wrong, but because there is nothing to talk about.

 

You experience it, you dont make threads like this any more. You know. When you know, there is nothing to speak. You will be asked and you will answer.

 

May I ask you, why are you interested talking with other egos about a possible reality free from ego? There are no answers.

Edited March 19, 2015 by 4bsolute

[Perceiver]

Great post 4bsolute.

 

I agree with you. The manifest world is ego. Everything that is manifesting in the world reacts on some level of ego.

 

Believing that something is preferable to something else is ego also. The manifest world is ego by necessity.

 

The only thing we can strive for is more knowledge of the depths of our ego. And this, I believe, will result in an experienced deeper ground of pure intentional choice.

[3bob]

it's kind of interesting that ego can not really imagine existence without it being in the picture...thus defining one of its limits.

[3bob]

"...Even with spiritual attainment, the Ego grows commensurate to the spiritual progress. The opposite of the "I am nothing to become everything" paradigm..." by Dwai

 

I'll have to disagree with your drift above Dwai, although such could be true of a being that grows powers or siddhis commensurate with ego without having gone through stages of ego death leading to Self-realization, for in such a case they then become an ego on steroids! Further, I'd bet that most true gurus only keep a small  but workable amount of identity around for the sake of functioning in the world - since they have overwhelmingly become identified with (or gone past the point of no return of being caught in ego identification) while still living in and interacting with the world but mainly doing so from the core of being and spiritual essence. 

[the1gza]

If you honestly were to eradicate ego, your whole existence would be annihilated. People talk of the eradication of ego as some bliss event... if you have no "Self", how are "you" experiencing anything? There's no bliss, because bliss is a "thing". To eradicate ego is to exist beyond all things all the time, so the idea of "feeling" bliss goes out the window unless you have an anchoring existence to experience from.

 

I feel that what folks are talking about with ego eradication is in fact an expansion of ego. Problem is that folks are so married to their particular conscious experience of this reality, that they point to this experience as being "The" self. When a person finally breaks those barriers, all of the sudden they feel like they transcended the "Self". However, what's been transcended is a dependence on this paradigmatic experience as the sole experience of the Self, and a person enters a field where they recognize just how expansive they are.

 

But if a person truthfully eradicated their ego, they would be writing about it, because they wouldn't be. We talk so much about eradicating this and that, nondualism, and yet we can't escape placing these ideas in dualistic means. Ego vs no ego, light vs dark, Unity vs separation... we can't talk about infinity using limited means of expression. This includes what I am saying here, no matter how sensical this might or might not sound, it's no closer or farther away from "explaining" things than anything else. This is why, as great as some philosophies might sound, they are ultimately inconsequential to anyone other than those people who can use it to help them gain experience of their potential.

 

However, beyond that... it's just hard for humans to accept the idea of being unified while experiencing a completely sovereign, independent experience. If you are to be unified with "the One" in the dualistic mind, then you have to eradicate ego and be "non-separate". The opposite view is held by so-called "left-hand path" idealists; in order to be your own sovereign, unlimited being, you gotta separate from everything else. Both come from dualism, and I feel both ideas can get you to that unlimited state. However, neither can be said to be true for all humans... there is an idea that "universality", "unity" and "equality" mean "sameness". Yet, everything we look and see around us tells us otherwise... hell, our own bodies tell us otherwise. Our bodily cells all have extremely unique qualities; it's not just "body" cells. You got brain cells, blood cells, muscle, bone, skin, organ and various other cells. Even cells in the same category can be broken down into even more differentiated categories, but they are unified. And hell, if you cells tried acting like other cells, if a blood cell tried being a skin cell, that thing would be expelled from the body or cause serious dysfunction in the body.

 

So these ideas... we have a desire to keep expressing them, but I feel that expression is better placed in practice rather than in facilitating theory. People often say, "spread knowledge", but I'm not sure that the ways we know how to spread them are useful. There's a very egotistical reason for teaching that many people don't like admitting, spreading "love" and being "One" with "everything. But even more so, this love of ego-annihilation is probably the most egotistical thing I have ever seen. I cannot think of a more egotistical ideal than eradicating your own identity. How big-balled do you gotta be thinking that you can garner so much will that you can erase your own identity? And I can say, in practicality, these ideals of ego-death do NOT play out in the world the way people picture them to be. Most "true gurus" are very far from looking like what we picture them to be, but they also aren't spending their time debating any of this with people, let alone on a internet forum. If we spent half as much time practicing as we did "searching" for other's answers and imbibing on that... well this forum might not exist hahaha.

[3bob]

ah, that sounds like a fancier way of ego not being able to see itself out of the picture... btw, its not ego killing ego which is just more ego as you imply, its more like the truth seeing through that which may or may not be an intelligent, sophisticated, rational and reasonable human identity - but which is still a relative and woven composite of form thus not the Self or Brahman core which ego will never and can never know - for only Brahman knows Brahman... and along with that idea one or more true guru's have said, "know the Self by the Self". 

Edited March 19, 2015 by 3bob

[dwai]

"...Even with spiritual attainment, the Ego grows commensurate to the spiritual progress. The opposite of the "I am nothing to become everything" paradigm..." by Dwai

 

I'll have to disagree with your drift above Dwai, although such could be true of a being that grows powers or siddhis commensurate with ego without having gone through stages of ego death leading to Self-realization, for in such a case they then become an ego on steroids! Further, I'd bet that most true gurus only keep a small  but workable amount of identity around for the sake of functioning in the world - since they have overwhelmingly become identified with (or gone past the point of no return of being caught in ego identification) while still living in and interacting with the world but mainly doing so from the core of being and spiritual essence. 

There is always that risk (and we see a lot of cases that are so). Like I said, this is not for everyone.

[Stosh]

Depending on ones use of the word ego, one is either speaking about the antisocial aspect of the ID , or ones identity as an individual.

The two definitions merge, when one considers the affirmation of ones individuality , as being inherently antisocial which may indeed often be the case.

 

If, as I have heard some notable speakers describe,  awareness is umm... a universal principle - which we each partake of as individual minds- then we are all part of a real unified WHOLE awareness , and simultaneously we have our awareness concurrent with our ego identity. 

 

Impermanence is fact ,our bodies are made of atoms , which come and go,while  breathing and eating and pooping etc . Clearly there is no physical part of us which could not be replaced , we replace our parts as we age and grow.

SO There is no thing which is us that is permanently unique to us , other than our experiences , which ALSO change and grow and are forgotten etc.

Since there is no specific constant  material THING that defines one of us, our awareness and Identity is a circumstance of atoms that happen to be in a localized area , we are impermanent ....

merely a continuation of past through to future of a pattern -called a body. 

Our awareness is simply a principle brought into being by the proximity of certain groupings of atoms. Thats IT ! simple fact.

 

Our ego , is essential for the continuation of the patterns in the world such as it is,( we individually need to eat, be clothed, breathe etc). Ego is functional to the manifestation of our awareness,,,  without a body , awareness isn't experienced .

 

However, in pursuit of our own lives we often obstruct the other lives - the other manifestations of awareness- and so , the antisocial aspect of the ego is born. When we recognize each other as also being either , like us , or important to us , or literally all one big social cooperative version of us... we tend to be nicer since we aren't seeing the divisions anymore.

We can share our lunch , protect the planet , relate and love one another as we love ourselves,

or even more than that.