What do you think the ego is?

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: What do you think the ego is?

Post by Cahoot »

movingalways wrote:
ardy: What I am struggling with is what its real/natural function is, does it die as part of enlightenment and what the hell is it.
In order to answer that question, one must be awake to the truth that attachment to form is the false reality. Once awakened to this truth, it becomes clear that the aspect or principle of consciousness that keeps this false view of reality alive is the ego. There is a saying that ego stands for "edging God out" which fits when one understands that God (and man of his/its image) is infinite spirit. Logic of wisdom tells us infinite spirit is attachment-free.

Logic also tells us that if ego is the principle of false view of attachment to form, ego is extinguished when attachment to form is extinguished.
Ego is so prevalent and persistent. Seems like it wouldn’t exist as part of the psychological package if it wasn’t necessary. Egoic distractions away from the ultimate futility of attachment allow attention to focus on the complications of living. A lot of attachments get worn out in the process of aging, attachments fall away due to other causes too, including purposeful intent.
Last edited by Cahoot on Sun Feb 08, 2015 9:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: What do you think the ego is?

Post by Cahoot »

ardy wrote:Cahoot:
I once picked up a half-wild scared kitten that couldn’t have weighed more than a pound. I thought I could control it with a good grip on the scruff of the neck. It turned into an egoless piece of steel with claws moving at warp speed. I was lucky to get away with just minor scars.

You should have picked up a large sharp knife and said "If anyone can mention one word of Zen I will save this cat. If not I will cut it in half before it scratches my hand off"

I think its been done before but such an opportunity should not be missed!
Then there are the Zen students who are also animal rights activists, who resolve the conundrum of animal cruelty vs. loyalty to this Zen teacher, by pressing charges. Teacher learn PC.
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: What do you think the ego is?

Post by Kunga »

The ego is thoughts.
The ego is thinking.
The ego is logic.
The ego is a survival mechanism of the conditioned human .
Ultimately, the ego does not exist.
It's a conceptual thought.
Thoughts are impermanent.
Only what is not impermanent exists.
It's thoughtless & egoless.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: What do you think the ego is?

Post by Pam Seeback »

ardy wrote:
movingalways wrote:
ardy: What I am struggling with is what its real/natural function is, does it die as part of enlightenment and what the hell is it.
In order to answer that question, one must be awake to the truth that attachment to form is the false reality. Once awakened to this truth, it becomes clear that the aspect or principle of consciousness that keeps this false view of reality alive is the ego. There is a saying that ego stands for "edging God out" which fits when one understands that God (and man of his/its image) is infinite spirit. Logic of wisdom tells us infinite spirit is attachment-free.

Logic also tells us that if ego is the principle of false view of attachment to form, ego is extinguished when attachment to form is extinguished.
MA: If form is your perception of reality and reality just exists. When you slap your hand on a table is that reality or just your form of reality?
Reality is in the formless causal realm, i.e., if I were to slap the table with my hand in order to kill a malaria carrying mosquito. In contrast, I would be in the imaginary realm of attachment to form if I were to slap the table with my hand because I liked the sound. Where the intent of the first slap is because of conscience (doing the right thing, “vertical” expansion of spirit), the second slap is about satisfying a “horizontal” emotional need.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: What do you think the ego is?

Post by Pam Seeback »

Cahoot:
Ego is so prevalent and persistent.
That is my current experience.
Seems like it wouldn’t exist as part of the psychological package if it wasn’t necessary.

Once one realizes their attachment to form (ego) is the reason they cannot enter the clarity and peace of the formless causal realm, the ego not only is realized to be unnecessary, but is considered the enemy to be vanquished. Necessity/preservation of ego is the lie we need to expose if we are to raise children free of its clinging, cloying ways.
Egoic distractions away from the ultimate futility of attachment allow attention to focus on the complications of living.
It is precisely the ego's attention on the complications of living (attachment to form) that prevent entrance into the formless causal realm.
A lot of attachments get worn out in the process of aging, attachments fall away due to other causes too, including purposeful intent.
To be enlightened is to be conscious, a conscious person would never settle for waiting until their attachments “got worn out with aging.” Remove them now declares the conscious one, God awaits!
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: What do you think the ego is?

Post by Cahoot »

the ego not only is realized to be unnecessary, but is considered the enemy to be vanquished.
That’s accurate and perceptive. It exists in the mind, along with samsara, nirvana, and enlightenment.

As Kunga mentions, ego is a survival mechanism for the human. Because ego is so prevalent throughout the species, ego seems to be integral to at least some phases of human experience, even though it is self-serving, ignorant, delusional, and all the rest. It also prompts aggressive competition for resources with its lustful greed, and the winner of the competition gets to survive awhile longer, more opportunities to inseminate those ego tendencies throughout the species

As a survival mechanism it would benefit the species for the young to possess the most vigorous survival mechanisms, and in biological terms they do. The young mature human is built for survival. More strength, speed, endurance, mental acuity pertaining to survival, physical resilience and immunity, than any other time in the lifespan. Add to these survival tools, ego.

Why would ego be a survival tool for the young? In the conditioned world of human species survival, strong competitive egos prevail, the host body survives, propagation, the adult survives long enough to rear the young. After that, not so much species need for strength, speed, endurance, mental acuity, immunity, or ego … which balances nicely with the fact that these survival mechanisms are diminishing at this time. The old, realizing the inevitability of the end, have developed their own tools to keep the young on their toes, which benefits the species. Fearless, ruthless, downright mean, onry, well-developed BS detectors, patience and a good sense of timing, mature aerial perspective and equanimity. Quite often old people are relieved of attachment by realizing the nature of attachment, through experiencing the full birth-to-death, transitory life cycle of so many attachments.

Sometimes a younger person with appropriate capacity and inclination realizes the nature of attachments, either suddenly or gradually, which prompts the quest for what is real, a quest that is a virtuous desire rather than an attachment to questing, born of ego.
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: What do you think the ego is?

Post by Kunga »

ardy wrote:
What I am struggling with is what its real/natural function is, does it die as part of enlightenment and what the hell is it.
I think as long as we are in this form as a human, a individual, a person that has an identity, you will always have an ego, although there are various degrees of attachment.

Was Buddha egotistical because he bothered to beg for food to sustain his body ?
Or does the person that hoards food and has no regard for others starving, have more ego ?
Buddha did starve himself in his pursuit of the Truth/Enlightenment, but realized he was not going to get very far, if he starved himself to death. He needed his energy, his human body to be healthy first.

I think there are various degree's of Awakening, as there are various degree's of the ego's prevalence.
The more Awakened, the less Ego.

Obviously, I am not fully Enlightened, or I would have the perfect answer to your question.
BardoXV
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2015 7:21 am

Re: What do you think the ego is?

Post by BardoXV »

Ego is the "I" of the self. When the self becomes one with the Universal mind and looses it's duality it looses the I and becomes non-dual. This is enlightenment.

But I say, therefore I don't know.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: What do you think the ego is?

Post by Leyla Shen »

We might consider "enlightenment" in terms of the Nietzschean Will to Power. In the "enlightened", causal subjective/objective relations (egoism) arise and fall away all the time as self-overcoming. To seek an "enlightenment" through the death of ego as though ego were some enduring, in-itself identity is nothing more than the sickness of egoistic self-deception: the will to non-existence!
Between Suicides
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: What do you think the ego is?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

BardoXV wrote:Ego is the "I" of the self. When the self becomes one with the Universal mind and looses it's duality it looses the I and becomes non-dual.
What's an "Universal Mind"? Why would you call it universal and why would it be a "mind"? Does it function like a mind?
BardoXV
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2015 7:21 am

Re: What do you think the ego is?

Post by BardoXV »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
BardoXV wrote:Ego is the "I" of the self. When the self becomes one with the Universal mind and looses it's duality it looses the I and becomes non-dual.
What's an "Universal Mind"? Why would you call it universal and why would it be a "mind"? Does it function like a mind?
"Universal Mind" is a term I've come across reading Zen Buddhism, there isn't much description so I only use it in that sense and enlightenment in the Buddhist usage of the term. I know there are other systems of thought that use enlightenment differently but these are not the ones I use. Other terms have been used in Buddhism such as 'No Mind' and 'One Mind', there are probably others and they all seem to refer to a consciousness that is non-dualistic.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: What do you think the ego is?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

BardoXV wrote:they all seem to refer to a consciousness that is non-dualistic.
Consciousness is all about distinction. Only the totality could be said to be non-dualistic but since it cannot be self-aware (there is no "other") the term consciousness taken in any universal sense remains fundamentally deceptive. It appears as pure contradiction and as such is a very cushy resting place for ego to find shelter in. No wonder many religious traditions and new age fads run away with it! The path of enlightenment is one of rooting out all possible shelters -- the eternal restlessness of pure spirit!
Huck Mucus
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2015 4:18 am

Re: What do you think the ego is?

Post by Huck Mucus »

I think the ego is All's successful effort to experience a portion of itself.
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: What do you think the ego is?

Post by Bobo »

Leyla Shen wrote:We might consider "enlightenment" in terms of the Nietzschean Will to Power. In the "enlightened", causal subjective/objective relations (egoism) arise and fall away all the time as self-overcoming.
They arise and fall where? In the ego? As if it where the space where action happens?
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: What do you think the ego is?

Post by Bobo »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
BardoXV wrote:they all seem to refer to a consciousness that is non-dualistic.
Consciousness is all about distinction. Only the totality could be said to be non-dualistic but since it cannot be self-aware (there is no "other") the term consciousness taken in any universal sense remains fundamentally deceptive. It appears as pure contradiction and as such is a very cushy resting place for ego to find shelter in. No wonder many religious traditions and new age fads run away with it! The path of enlightenment is one of rooting out all possible shelters -- the eternal restlessness of pure spirit!
Three monks saw a flag moving' the first monk said:
-The flag is moving.
The second monk rebutted:
-No, the wind is moving.
The third one did not agree:
-You are both wrong, mind is moving.
Passing by Diebert the sage heard the discussion and wisely said to the monks:
-Your views monks are nihilistic in nature. Neither the flag or the wind or the mind is moving. Nothing is moving.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: What do you think the ego is?

Post by Leyla Shen »

That's right, Bobo. As if it were the space where everything happens.
Between Suicides
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: What do you think the ego is?

Post by Cahoot »

The ego is the greatest technician in the world. The ego lives on know how. The ego is the very base of all technology. In the East technology could not develop because people became more and more alert to the ego, and the very root was cut. They lived surrendered lives.

- Osho
http://www.oshobooks.net/yoga4/chapter/ ... dy-that/3/
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: What do you think the ego is?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Living in poverty is far more dangerous, far more suffering than dying in a beautifully, scientifically managed gas chamber in Germany.

- Osho
http://www.oshorajneesh.com/download/os ... lume_1.pdf
Personally I'd rather say that living in spiritual povery, ignorance, is far more dangerous and a more important cause of violence and abuse. Osho should know when looking back at his own actions and those of his closest students!
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: What do you think the ego is?

Post by Cahoot »

He did stir things up in his day. Trungpa Rinpoche was another meanie.

“Abusive guru” can be one of those difficult oxymoronic concepts that sends the enquiry back to premises.

In referencing Jung, Osho said that causality does not explain everything that happens. Existing alongside scientific causality is feminine synchronicity. He said that synchronized lives don’t always make causal sense to the scientific mind, and that his own life was synchronized.

Perhaps when machines become sentient, the difference between machine mind and human mind will be that the machine mind infers reality solely by continuously crunching through paralyzing numbers of causal variables, too exhausting for a human built for survival and currently beyond AI computing capacity, though didn’t Herbert’s mentats function at that level? Rather than causality not yet known, synchronicity explains the way real human beans function, actually more rationally than rationality does.

http://www.oshobooks.net/yoga8/chapter/ ... nd-moon/5/
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: What do you think the ego is?

Post by Bobo »

Leyla Shen wrote:To seek an "enlightenment" through the death of ego as though ego were some enduring, in-itself identity is nothing more than the sickness of egoistic self-deception: the will to non-existence!
So I guess you are saying that for the non-enlightened the ego is something eternal, as space empty of matter. What is the will to non-existence then? Why it is not the will to power?
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: What do you think the ego is?

Post by Bobo »

The ego is the greatest technician in the world. The ego lives on know how. The ego is the very base of all technology. In the East technology could not develop because people became more and more alert to the ego, and the very root was cut. They lived surrendered lives.

- Osho
http://www.oshobooks.net/yoga4/chapter/ ... dy-that/3/
Between giving lectures and driving a rolls-royce he could have cracked a book for a change. Technology and a society and economy that is fuelled by technology came from the industrial revolution and the process some centuries before that were needed to lead to the revolution in the first place to create a society where the transformative process is at its base. Agrarian societies on the other hand does not need and cannot support such transformative processes, its growth is limited by the value that can be extracted from the land. Where great value could be extracted from the land is generally where civilizations in the past flourished.

So the development of technology is not something about ego, east or west (actually one of the steps of west development towards technology were the bridges with the eastern world) Now if we take a broader view of technology and development, astronomical knowledge for example, we will find the 'know how' east, west, up, and down. Civilizations were destroyed by the 'western ego' (and cutting edge technology as bigger guns) and our very civilization is at risk of being destroyed by it since the planet (or the land) cannot support infinite growth, what the ego does in it is to be consumed by technological gadgets.
User avatar
ardy
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:44 am

Re: What do you think the ego is?

Post by ardy »

Something else crossed my mind and as I think I mentioned earlier, I spent about 6 months where the ego appeared to have no influence in terms of discrimination and at that time I could not make a judgement about people. They all seemed the same to me.

Now my job was hung on my ability to hire, not only capable but also people who would 'fit in', during this time I employed a total arsehole which I would never have done normally. I was left with the decision to either pack the job in or give away my internal work!

Now if at that time my ego disappeared, did I leave myself totally exposed due to my inability to discriminate?

Is the ego a protection mechanism from a time when we were hunted as well the hunters?
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: What do you think the ego is?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

ardy wrote:Now if at that time my ego disappeared, did I leave myself totally exposed due to my inability to discriminate?
All one can tell is that the ability to discriminate or critically think was temporary diminished. To call that "ego" would lead to seeing ego as a natural function of any engagement and activity. But in terms of spiritual goals, targetting that doesn't seem to make much sense.
Is the ego a protection mechanism from a time when we were hunted as well the hunters?
If it can be called a mechanism then it's from a time where irrational fears, the burdens of shame and vivid imaginations took hold of us. As a construct the ego itself is imaginary but naturally the perception of dealing with "one" does have its causes. And in that sense it's a "thing", like the dark of a closed off room is a thing.
User avatar
ardy
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:44 am

Re: What do you think the ego is?

Post by ardy »

[quote="Diebert van Rhijn"]All one can tell is that the ability to discriminate or critically think was temporary diminished. To call that "ego" would lead to seeing ego as a natural function of any engagement and activity. But in terms of spiritual goals, targetting that doesn't seem to make much sense.

HI D - In terms of spiritual goals (an anathema in it's own right) it makes no sense, YET we have to do something. You can sit on a rock and do nothing until your arse turns to concrete but it won't make you a buddha. You can cut off your limbs or meditate until everything disappears and it still won't make you a buddha. The state appears to be a lack of things not an accumulation of them.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: What do you think the ego is?

Post by Cahoot »

Bobo wrote:
The ego is the greatest technician in the world. The ego lives on know how. The ego is the very base of all technology. In the East technology could not develop because people became more and more alert to the ego, and the very root was cut. They lived surrendered lives.

- Osho
http://www.oshobooks.net/yoga4/chapter/ ... dy-that/3/
Between giving lectures and driving a rolls-royce he could have cracked a book for a change. Technology and a society and economy that is fuelled by technology came from the industrial revolution and the process some centuries before that were needed to lead to the revolution in the first place to create a society where the transformative process is at its base. Agrarian societies on the other hand does not need and cannot support such transformative processes, its growth is limited by the value that can be extracted from the land. Where great value could be extracted from the land is generally where civilizations in the past flourished.

So the development of technology is not something about ego, east or west (actually one of the steps of west development towards technology were the bridges with the eastern world) Now if we take a broader view of technology and development, astronomical knowledge for example, we will find the 'know how' east, west, up, and down. Civilizations were destroyed by the 'western ego' (and cutting edge technology as bigger guns) and our very civilization is at risk of being destroyed by it since the planet (or the land) cannot support infinite growth, what the ego does in it is to be consumed by technological gadgets.
Before Rolls Royces began to collect around Osho, he was a philosophy professor.

“It is only that the maker, the watchmaker, has synchronized them in such a way that something happens in one and simultaneously something else happens in the other. They are not connected by any cause and effect.”

- Osho, speaking of Jung’s insight
Locked