Ego and enlightenment

[Bindi]

Is ego transcendence considered to be the final stage before enlightenment? I’ve included definitions of ego transcendence below, which may need redefining.

Ego-transcendence: 1. The act or condition of going beyond ego or egoity, as in love, service, non-egoic discipline, or undivided attention for another. 2. An evolutive practice or technique which involves moving beyond prior limitations. This technique is known as essential for spiritual and psychological progress: see SADHANA. 3. A state or condition in which spiritual ecstasy is experienced by virtue of the release of a spirit-being from the confines of ego and egocentrism. 4. Any experience or process through which the spirit-being comes to know itself as it is, i.e., spirit and not ego or lower mind.

http://soulprogress.com/html/Glossary/EgoTranscendenceGlossary.html

[MooNiNite]

The ego never goes away. All great masters retain ego. 

[MooNiNite]

One's thoughts and ideas of self can dissolve to the point where the individual becomes one with the object of concentration.

 

However, ego and the individuality becomes more refined and perfected with cultivation.

 

So as one becomes free they also become unique. 

[C T]

All compounded things are impermanent and liable to cease, and liable to return. Is ego a compound? More than anything else, i would assert. 

[3bob]

I'd say most fine masters control a shred of ego to still interact with the world, yet can leave it behind for Self and then come back, so to speak... Another string commented on a very tiny handful of masters that are perpetually in Spirit so one could look there for info along those lines.  Further, when jiva (so to speak in common language)  becomes Siva what ego can remain; (?)  schools along that line say none.

Edited August 5, 2015 by 3bob

[sufiman]

Enlightened masters ride their egos like a steed

[Tibetan_Ice]

That is a great question!

 

According to Ramana, the ego is the mind, that which thinks, the doer, that which should be destroyed in order to realize the Self. The method to destroy the ego is Enquiry.

 

The mind is a bundle of thoughts. The thoughts arise because there is the thinker. The thinker is the ego. The ego, if sought, will automatically vanish. The ego and the mind are the same. (Ramana Maharshi, TWSRM, Question 347.)

 

...

 

[Through Atma Vichara] the mind gets clear of impurities and become pure enough to reflect the truth, the real Self. This is impossible when the ego is active and assertive. (Ramana Maharshi, SDB, xii.)

 

...

Self-Enquiry – The nature of the ego-self, ahamkara, or jiva

Ego is non-existent, otherwise you would be two instead of one – you the ego and you the Self. You are a single, indivisible whole. (Ramana Maharshi, GR, 54.)

The ego or separate soul is a concept. God, the world, the mind, desires, action, sorrow and all other things are all concepts. (Ramana Maharshi, HRG, 15.)

 

The ego-self does not exist at all. (Ramana Maharshi, GR, 54.)

 

The ego and the mind are the same. The ego is the root-thought from which all other thoughts arise. (Ramana Maharshi, TWSRM, Question 347.)

 

Between spirit and matter, the self and the body, there is born something which is called the Ahamkara , the ego-self, Jiva , the living being. Now what you call your self is this ego-self which is different from the ever-conscious Self and from unconscious matter, but which at the same time partakes of the character of both spirit and matter, Chetana and Jada . (Ramana Maharshi, SDB, xvi-xvii.)

 

It comes into being equipped with a form, and as long as it retains a form it endures. Having a form, it feeds and grows big. But if you investigate it, this evil spirit, which has no form of its own, relinquishes its grip on form and takes to flight. (Ramana Maharshi, FVR, verse 25.)

 

The ego is described as having three bodies, the gross, the subtle and the casual, but that is only for the purposes of analytical exposition. If the method of enquiry were to depend on the ego’s form, you may take it that any enquiry would become altogether impossible, because the forms the ego may assume are legion. Therefore, for purposes of Jnana-vichara, you have to proceed on the basis that the ego has but one form, namely that of Aham-vritti. (Ramana Maharshi, MG, 83.)

 

This inert body does not say “I.” Reality-Consciousness does not emerge. Between the two, and limited to the measure of the body, something emerges as “I.” It is this that is known as Chit-Jada-granthi (the knot between the Conscious and the inert), and also as bondage, soul, subtle-body, ego, samsara , mind, and so forth. (Ramana Maharshi, FVR, verse 24.)

 

From the functional point of view the form, activity or whatever else you may call it (it is immaterial, since it is evanescent), the ego has one and only one characteristic. The ego functions as the knot between the Self which is the pure Consciousness and the physical body which is inert and insentient. The ego is therefore called the Chit-jada granthi.In your investigation into the Source of Aham-vritti, you take the essential Chit aspect of the ego; and for this reason the enquiry must lead to the realization of the pure Consciousness of the Self. (Ramana Maharshi, MG, 85.)

 

For Him who is immersed in the bliss of the Self, arising from the extinction of the ego, what remains to be accomplished? He is not aware of anything (as) other than the Self. Who can apprehend his State? (Ramana Maharshi, FVR, verse 31.)

 

The theme of destruction or dissolution of the ego is also found in Nisargadatta's teaching, where he says to focus on the feeling of "I AM" until it dissolves, revealing what lies beyond.

 

I think you will find the dissolution of the ego in every main religion in one form or another, except maybe Daosim. I mean no disrespect but it seems that Daoism is concerned more with becoming, with mastering, with elevating and accomplishing rather than surrender. I think Daoism attempts to expand the I thought through trying to take control of every aspect of the material and energetic world and balance it, perform tricks with it, become immortal... Not that there is anything wrong with that but it seems to be counter to dissolving the ego.

Again, I have not studied much Daoism so shoot me..

 

In Christianity you find ideas like selfless service, loving your neighbor, treating other as you want to be treated, not casting any stones, charity etc... These are all forms of diminishing the self(ego). -note, this is the small self here, in Ramana-ian terms.

 

In Buddhism, they go to elaborate lengths to prove that there is no self. They have the theory of dependent origination, anatta, sunyata, emptiness... And they also have a major component of Bodhicitta, compassion for other beings, which is key to most all variations of Buddhism. HOWEVER, you will not find mention of a Self (in Ramana-ian terms) in Buddhism. I think it is because most everything that Buddha taught was careful not to undermine the teaching by introducing a trump card. Refer to what Buddha told Ananda... And if you want to believe it, it is said that the Buddha once fed his body to a starving lioness with cubs. I mean, how selfless is that?

 

For me, the times when my heart opens up and I see the magic in the world is when I do a selfless act which comes from the heart, with more concern for others than what it costs me and without concern for remuneration or what I will get in return. The world becomes a clearer more sparkly place that shines and glitters just a little more subtly. And sometimes the other planes reveal themselves, illuminated by the floodlight in my heart.

 

"The idol of your self is the mother of all idols. To regard the self as easy to subdue is a mistake." (Rumi)

 

(and that self is not capitalized)

 

Edited August 5, 2015 by Tibetan_Ice

[Bud Jetsun]

The delusion of ego you choose to believe you're perceiving in Now is the ego. 

 

It's the thing you trade your peace in to replace with the illusion something else thinks your thoughts in a parade out of your control. 

 

Nothing else has ever thought a thought for you, you always have had perfect mindfulness Now.  It only requires seeing the illusion of not having it for what it is. 

 

With Unlimited Love,

-Bud

[Karl]

The delusion of ego you choose to believe you're perceiving in Now is the ego. 

 

It's the thing you trade your peace in to replace with the illusion something else thinks your thoughts in a parade out of your control. 

 

Nothing else has ever thought a thought for you, you always have had perfect mindfulness Now.  It only requires seeing the illusion of not having it for what it is. 

 

With Unlimited Love,

-Bud

 

In a sense, there is no illusion either. It's purely a personal choice, something similar to having an imaginary friend. How that schism occurred is a bit of a mystery.

[Kubba]

Is ego transcendence considered to be the final stage before enlightenment? I’ve included definitions of ego transcendence below, which may need redefining.

 

Ego-transcendence: 1. The act or condition of going beyond ego or egoity, as in love, service, non-egoic discipline, or undivided attention for another. 2. An evolutive practice or technique which involves moving beyond prior limitations. This technique is known as essential for spiritual and psychological progress: see SADHANA. 3. A state or condition in which spiritual ecstasy is experienced by virtue of the release of a spirit-being from the confines of ego and egocentrism. 4. Any experience or process through which the spirit-being comes to know itself as it is, i.e., spirit and not ego or lower mind.

 

http://soulprogress.com/html/Glossary/EgoTranscendenceGlossary.html

I guess it is more complicated. They say that after noticing the nature of emptiness all is done but actually it just starts the process of transfiguration.

Also all depands on individuality and the way of Shakti. There are people that all happends to them in one moment, others need to go through different stages and its hard to describe for them where they are - if ego has been transcended or not yet.

 

Probably Ramana said it - it is like with the fan - you turn it off and yet it still moves for some time until it looses its momentum....

 

Besides, ego is a traditional concept . There are few teachers who talk about 2 things - ego and the imaginary Self, which is more acurate and less confusing. The imaginary self gradually vanishes but ego, as individuality and the immunite system stays. There are stages when youre withouth ego - this place isnt nice to stay in.

Edited August 5, 2015 by Kubba

[rex]

Don't know anything about stages to enlightenment (however that is defined) but In the Tibetan tradition ego is a verb, so it is something that is constantly being created and maintained. Presumably an adept has the freedom to consciously choose whether or not to centre themselves in ego and use it as a convenience to operate conventionally in the world.

[Bindi]

I'd say most fine masters control a shred of ego to still interact with the world, yet can leave it behind for Self and then come back, so to speak... Another string commented on a very tiny handful of masters that are perpetually in Spirit so one could look there for info along those lines.  Further, when jiva (so to speak in common language)  becomes Siva what ego can remain; (?)  schools along that line say none.

 

Many years ago I had a dream where I looked out of a large window and saw the ‘oceanriver’. I was thinking about this image and this specific word yesterday, along the lines of when the river merges with the ocean the river no longer exists in the same form but has become perceptibly more, but also that the ocean is no longer just ocean but has become imperceptibly more.

 

I think reaching the point where the river is merged to that extent, no ego would remain.

 

When the ignorant mind comes to know the Supreme Bliss attendant

on the state of Nirvana, it is ready to resort to it, as the inland

stream runs to join the boundless sea.

 

http://www.spiritual-minds.com/returntoshiva.htm

[Karl]

 

Many years ago I had a dream where I looked out of a large window and saw the ‘oceanriver’. I was thinking about this image and this specific word yesterday, along the lines of when the river merges with the ocean the river no longer exists in the same form but has become perceptibly more, but also that the ocean is no longer just ocean but has become imperceptibly more.

I think reaching the point where the river is merged to that extent, no ego would remain.

 

 

Does it matter ? If it does then find the one for whom there is an ego that needs to be removed ;-)

[Bindi]

That is a great question!

 

According to Ramana, the ego is the mind, that which thinks, the doer, that which should be destroyed in order to realize the Self. The method to destroy the ego is Enquiry.

 

 

The theme of destruction or dissolution of the ego is also found in Nisargadatta's teaching, where he says to focus on the feeling of "I AM" until it dissolves, revealing what lies beyond.

 

I think you will find the dissolution of the ego in every main religion in one form or another, except maybe Daosim. I mean no disrespect but it seems that Daoism is concerned more with becoming, with mastering, with elevating and accomplishing rather than surrender. I think Daoism attempts to expand the I thought through trying to take control of every aspect of the material and energetic world and balance it, perform tricks with it, become immortal... Not that there is anything wrong with that but it seems to be counter to dissolving the ego.

Again, I have not studied much Daoism so shoot me..

 

In Christianity you find ideas like selfless service, loving your neighbor, treating other as you want to be treated, not casting any stones, charity etc... These are all forms of diminishing the self(ego). -note, this is the small self here, in Ramana-ian terms.

 

In Buddhism, they go to elaborate lengths to prove that there is no self. They have the theory of dependent origination, anatta, sunyata, emptiness... And they also have a major component of Bodhicitta, compassion for other beings, which is key to most all variations of Buddhism. HOWEVER, you will not find mention of a Self (in Ramana-ian terms) in Buddhism. I think it is because most everything that Buddha taught was careful not to undermine the teaching by introducing a trump card. Refer to what Buddha told Ananda... And if you want to believe it, it is said that the Buddha once fed his body to a starving lioness with cubs. I mean, how selfless is that?

 

For me, the times when my heart opens up and I see the magic in the world is when I do a selfless act which comes from the heart, with more concern for others than what it costs me and without concern for remuneration or what I will get in return. The world becomes a clearer more sparkly place that shines and glitters just a little more subtly. And sometimes the other planes reveal themselves, illuminated by the floodlight in my heart.

 

"The idol of your self is the mother of all idols. To regard the self as easy to subdue is a mistake." (Rumi)

 

(and that self is not capitalized)

 

 

Many good quotes from Ramana here, thanks T_I.

 

This quote “The ego is the root-thought from which all other thoughts arise” seems to answer my question, in that if ego is the root thought, it must be the last thought left between the 'ego-self' and the 'ever conscious- Self.'

 

Interesting point about the apparent lack of ego dissolution in Daoism, I wonder what a Daoist might say?

[Bindi]

Does it matter ? If it does then find the one for whom there is an ego that needs to be removed ;-)

Well obviously it matters to me Karl, and because it mattered I found the one for whom there is an ego, and surprise surprise it was me, and it needs to be 'removed'.

[Karl]

Well obviously it matters to me Karl, and because it mattered I found the one for whom there is an ego, and surprise surprise it was me, and it needs to be 'removed'.

 

Find the one to whom 'me' occurs.

 

You are creating an imaginary entity with which to do battle. That which you create can be uncreated, there is no 'removal' because there is nothing existent. See, there are not two minds. There is not one mind called 'ego' and another which is 'non ego'. It's just lumpy mind stew. If you create a dream wall, then you will have to create a dream hammer to break it down, but see, you remain just the same. Nothing changes. Will you create and endless supply of walls and hammers like the reflection between two mirrors ? You are as you are, accept that you are, do not seek to find what was never lost, or try break the thing that remains unbuilt.

 

 

[Nikolai1]

Interesting point about the apparent lack of ego dissolution in Daoism, I wonder what a Daoist might say?

 

When Tibetan Ice said of Daoism that 'it seems that Daoism is concerned more with becoming, with mastering, with elevating and accomplishing rather than surrender' he was talking about one expression of the religion, but i think it is still a legitimate comment about many Daoists.

 

Although it seems confusing at first glance, the acquisition of power and mastery is as much a dissolution of the ego as renunciation.  Through increased power of the will, we escape the confines of the egoic will.  This is spiritualy liberating because the frustration of being confined by time, space and the iron laws of our normal condition are transcended. 

 

In the west this is often referred to as the path of magick.  It is often perceived as being hazardous or morally dubious because we imagine that such powers will be exploited to selfish ends.  But all those who have actaully gained the powers say the same thing: to gain the powers is simultaneous with transcendence of the ego.  We therefore feel little desire to apply the powers to selfish ends.

 

Power is a fruit of the spiritual life in whatever form it takes.  The ambitious politician and business tycoon are yogis of a kind.  They are lesser yogis because their heightened powers only operate within conventional conceptions of the laws of time and space.  But they understand these laws well and deserve the acclaim and respect they receive from others whose mindview is at the same level.  As lesser yogis they also deserve the despair when their schemes backfire.

 

It seems that the mostt adored masters of humanity have eschewed transcendence of the egoic will in favour of transcendence of the egoic heart.

[Karl]

I have some invisible magic beans for sale. :-)

[Sebastian]

As an average Joe, I notice that the quality of my life is connected to how much I can dis-identify from ego at any given time.

 

Energy practices are useful but if you keep a sense of being a victim and lost at the center of the Universe, then life is going to be very small and lonely.

 

To succeed in our field I think you need to keep doing energetic practices while being on the lookout for ego at every step of the way. If you don't, usually ego will sabotage everything and make you feel like a failure, at least temporarily.

 

If you watch the entire process of ego trying to use practice against you, then you'll be fine. If you can watch stories about your life and they have no pull on you whatsoever then that's a level of temporary enlightenment in my book.

 

Energy can be blissful but taking a step back from the stories in your mind will relax even more and give better direction to your practice.

[3bob]

Karl, It sounds like the red pill or the blue pill or both are stuck somewhere in your throat?  And or thus I don't think gagging is all you're making it out to be.

Edited August 5, 2015 by 3bob

[Fate]

I think you will find the dissolution of the ego in every main religion in one form or another, except maybe Daosim. I mean no disrespect but it seems that Daoism is concerned more with becoming, with mastering, with elevating and accomplishing rather than surrender. I think Daoism attempts to expand the I thought through trying to take control of every aspect of the material and energetic world and balance it, perform tricks with it, become immortal... Not that there is anything wrong with that but it seems to be counter to dissolving the ego.

Again, I have not studied much Daoism so shoot me.

 

*loads rifle of love*

 

 

"'Surrender brings perfection'

The crooked become straight

The empty become full

The worn become new"

 

Taoism is filled with paradox, which is why it is so easy to misinterpret and confuse. E.g. through giving up on others, a Sage comes to help all beings.

 

As Nikolai illustrates, its that concept of mutual arising.

 

All this "control" and "mastery over elements" and what not arises with the transcendence of using such things for one's own gain and any control.

 

 

Buddhists and Taoists really aren't that different. The more I see and learn about other paths, the less difference I see. Its all just so many words...

 

Siddhartha didn't attain enlightenment until he gave up "the very idea of work." The Middle Way is exactly the same as Taoism.

Edited August 5, 2015 by Fate

[Karl]

Karl, It sounds like the red pill or the blue pill or both are stuck somewhere in your throat?  And or thus I don't think gagging is all you're making it out to be.

 

Gagging is most infinitely preferable then :-)

 

Better a gagging man than a suffering one.

[Karl]

*loads rifle of love*

 

 

"'Surrender brings perfection'

The crooked become straight

The empty become full

The worn become new"

 

Taoism is filled with paradox, which is why it is so easy to misinterpret and confuse. E.g. through giving up on others, a Sage comes to help all beings.

 

As Nikolai illustrates, its that concept of mutual arising.

 

All this "control" and "mastery over elements" and what not arises with the transcendence of using such things for one's own gain and any control.

 

 

Buddhists and Taoists really aren't that different. The more I see and learn about other paths, the less difference I see. Its all just so many words...

 

Siddhartha didn't attain enlightenment until he gave up "the very idea of work." The Middle Way is exactly the same as Taoism.

 

Precisely. He gave up the illusion of being unenlightened.

 

It is possible to an extent to surrender to something or other. Pet rabbit, guru, God or whatever is handy. I did that for a few years as it steals away the sense 'I control this/that'. Kind of flinging yourself on the mercy of something greater.

 

Really, anyway to rub off the imaginary ticks and leeches is fine.

[de_paradise]

Perhaps we can imagine the ego as an operating system that determines our behavior, but as we progress spiritually we can understand a higher operating system, and as we cleave to the higher system, the ego system becomes a fainter, perhaps optional operating system. So you could keep your computer running the ego operating system in order to run some applications such as "self-protection against nasty people." The Kabbalists say that the highest is to enlist the ego in order to fulfil the higher operating system, and this is called a corrected version of the ego, or malchut.

Edited August 5, 2015 by de_paradise

[Karl]

Perhaps we can imagine the ego as an operating system that determines our behavior, but as we progress spiritually we can understand a higher operating system, and as we cleave to the higher system, the ego system becomes a fainter, perhaps optional operating system. So you could keep your computer running the ego operating system in order to run some applications such as "self-protection against nasty people." The Kabbalists say that the highest is to enlist the ego in order to fulfil the higher operating system, and this is called a corrected version of the ego, or malchut.

This is the mistake. Thinking there is some separate entity called the ego. The mind is one, viewed against the transparency of conscious awareness. It isn't separated into 'me and my ego'.

 

I also thought that way for years before it clicked.

 

The problem is thinking 'I must think differently from the way I am currently thinking'. As soon as that thought arises, then it opposes reality. You cannot unthink what you thought, or change the thought and arrange the mind in some specific way as if it were a detached entity. You can add to your experience base, rethink solutions and concepts in light of new learnings, but beyond that nothing else is possible. It's seamless. Thoughts come and go and there is no obvious 'mind' in which they occur, all we can be is conscious of those thoughts. It's consciousness that makes thoughts possible and thoughts that make consciousness inevitable.

 

If the though comes 'I have an ego self' then how is that thought any different from the thought 'I fancy eggs for breakfast' ? Is it the ego thinking about the eggs ? Or is it the egg fancying breakfaster thinking about the ego ? Maybe it's the egg fancier that is the problem then ? ;-)

 

Both thoughts, one pure consciousness viewing both.

 

This is why I say logic is so important. One thing cannot be both things. If that's how it seems then check the premise, one of them is wrong.

Edited August 5, 2015 by Karl