You are hereForums / Non-Duality / EGO Vs NO-EGO
EGO Vs NO-EGO
Ego Vs No-Ego
“Ego” is the sense of being, the I AM , self consciousness.
A Person…(peter…angryidiot aka gopi , danamolos aka…?, Tony etc etc ) are the “sense of being” – “this and that”.
“The sense of being this and that” also includes being happy, sad and so on so forth.
In other words I AM/EGO/ Self consciousness is also a sense of being- “being”- which is also, naturally, a sense of being this and that.
It is on this “sense of being this and that”, ..that the entire thought mechanism pivots around.
Thinking cannot take place without a sense of being.( or more truly a sense of being this and that).
This far this good. But why did man start to grapple with this EGO/ sense of being?
For a very good reason, it was because , his sense of being includes(ed) sense of being in pain and suffering , as sense of loss and a sense of grief so on and so forth.
Impermanent too is one such sense of being. I will be no more one day. I will not posses this and that one day …etc so on and so forth.
That led man to start wrestle with this sense of being. Question that sense of being.
In the Process, While the Vedas /Upanishads called this sense of being an incarnation/manifestation of the Divine, by exalting it as Brahman, atman etc etc some called this sense of being an illusion and the root to all suffering. For instance Buddha first explains that everything to be impermanent and then ,once, the bhikshu understands the doctrine of impermanency he puts forth a simple question….dear students, in this impermanent world of ours, which , you have understood , because of its nature of impermanency naturally and logically , leading to sorrow/loss and suffering , is it any way wise calling anything/something as me or mine?
No my lord the disciples reply….because a hammer hit them…..Bang ! no self , the anatta , No ego …like peeling open a fruit and putting it in ones hand and asking him to eat…as easy.
Now first let us come to the first route calling the ego …God, divine, Brahman, Atman, Jiva etc etc …..
Many many seekers when they come across a line which reads” aham brahmasmi”
“I am the Brahman”…get , content. There you go …the sense of being in this impermanent world of ours stands resolved. Let death/sorrow come , but this “I” carries on.
But very few question what the Brahman/Divine /atman /Self/ is in the first place!
And how do Vedas define Brahman?divine/self????? It is the source, it is beyond sorrow, it is permanent, it is like the centre of a wheel so on and so forth….
But all such definitions are always in the language of the sense of being.
Then suddenly there is a biting of the tongue, if it too is a sense of being…Am I free?
Out of the cupboard comes the limited nature of language/words…the Brahman is undefinable…not relative..is the absolute etc etc etc so and and so forth…
Na na na(not) or cha cha cha(also) cries the yajurveda
And the upanishads sophisticate the process and evolve the “neti neti” the not this …
But what ever “beyond” we try to project it too is only a sense of being…a sense of being beyond!
Now let us come to the second route …that ego is an illusion or in reality is not.
but how many of people who had this realisation of not being in real , stop eating?
It’s a very simple question, crude but to the point. Why ? why don’t they stop eating…?
2 answers come here…and any/all others are only built on these…
1. That only eating is happening and not someone eating it( some later Buddhist doctrines are in a way similar to this). So eating is real and someone eating it is an illusion.
However if eating can happen or is a happenning , why not being too?
2. That eating is also an illusion.
So if every thing is an illusion, why call it an illusion? It is real !. And on the other hand if there is something “real” other than this illusion it is back to the brhaman theory.
In reality one only needs to see with courage and in an instant it is seen that “life” every day runs contrary to the No-ego/No-self realisation…anyway..
So if both the routes do not resolve the sense of being….is there no resolution to the sense of being….? Where did the route(s) go wrong?
So the actual merry go round is not this world itself being a merry go round, but rather when these 2 routes go wrong.That is teh actual merry go round.
They went wrong by running away from it , in order to cope up with what they understood to be the root of all suffering.. as “the sense of being”.
Buddha makes a brilliant effort , to hold still the seeker from not running away from the sense of being and see the real real bond.
So he pulls away the seekr from the actual merry go round and simply says to him…
See dear seeker , it is not the sense of being which is the root, let me tell you…child…It is the craving for sense of being and non being that is the root of all suffering.
Bang then all hell breaks lose…where does craving end and love begin? Is eating ice cream and also other simple things in life also craving? If they are what the hell is life for in the first place etc etc etc.
That is why many people run away from Buddhism. Though it talks about kindness and metta it can "appear" real iron clad!
So the direction of Buddhism was correct…it was looking in the right direction..sense of being nothing wrong , it is something “linked” to this which is causing all the mischief.
So bang goes the seeker off the merry go round. He jumped of the spiritual number line as such…but as I said the link could not be determined by calling it craving.
It is Fear.
Fear is the bond that ties up man. A fear of being this and that. For instance I AM is a fear of Not being. I am Not is a fear of being.
One can say even fear is also a sense of being. True. But however sense of being is not our bond/root of the problem.
It is the fear of the past( of being so and so in the past) a fear of the present( of being so and so ) and a fear of the future ( of then being so and so ) that ties up man and the root of all suffering.
So enlightenment to the seeker is the ability to cope up with this “fear”.
If he says there is a reality beyond he is running away from this fear, if he says this is an illusion it is one and the same!
True fearlessness is when fear is taken head on! Not depending on any other thing, including not fearing the output.
Bang..direct…head on…..
Now one cannot teach/share… this head on or can one? Let me try…
Take death….
>>>>>Okay let it come, if not today it will happen tomorrow. I am not running away from it.I will have to face it one day and I will face it so fearlessly, I will not be binded by fear, and die while living… .no way
Is how I take/think about death… ..
To get rid of this fear , head on is enlightenment. Because what is enlightenment ? it is the supreme ability , which is everyones inborn basic nature… in being able to cope up with no matter what! Past present future…for that is life!!
You Go Buddha!
"It is on this 'sense of being this and that', ..that the entire thought mechanism pivots around."
My personal experiences varies from this perspective.
The thought mechanism pivots around "this, not that"... not "that and that".
The thought mechanism is a master-full circle creator, to use a helpful metaphor, where things are defined by what is in the circle (i.e. happy) in contrast to its opposite (i.e. not happy or sad)... or cold in contrast to not cold/hot.
This, not that.
But I'm glad that you brought up "this and that", though. It is a part of my favorite manta, or "this and that and that, (ad infinitum)"
Which is an effective dis-speller of the appearance of separateness, I have discovered.
If your mileage differs from mine, in this regard, I am happy to acknowledge that that difference is simply a manifestation of "this, not that".
And I thank you for that manifestation.
P.S. My "this, not that" characterization of ego is also a simple one. Perceive yourself as separate and apart from anything/everything else, and viola... ego.
Quote:"My "this, not that" characterization of ego is also a simple one. Perceive yourself as separate and apart from anything/everything else, and viola... ego."
That about sums it up nicely. You are so much more concise. Sometimes less is more :}
>>>>>>The thought mechanism is a master-full circle creator, to use a helpful metaphor, where things are defined by what is in the circle (i.e. happy) in contrast to its opposite (i.e. not happy or sad)... or cold in contrast to not cold/hot.This, not that.
when one touches the wood , how does the touch feel? that touch is also an "interpretation".,in other words "thought"
similarily when one touches cold...what is that "coldness"..simply thought for being an interpretation of consiousness.
now what is "cold good/bad than heat"? it is of course thought...but rather in a way thought on thought....
the question though is at what point in a "thought" does this and not that comes in...
is it at the point of "cold"/coldness itself? if it is the point of coldness itself ,,,then the "that" which is hotness must have once been a "this"..or no way there would be the thought of the cold "now" or as "this" and not that.
that is why thought mechanism pivots around the sense of being this(and not that) and that( and not this)..SIMULTANEOUSLY...in simple terms without a sense of hotness working behind, a sense of coldness cannot come to the fore.
having said all this ...by saying a sense of being this and that i was only simply referring to different states of being and nothing else, complicated.
----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>But I'm glad that you brought up "this and that", though. It is a part of my favorite manta, or "this and that and that, (ad infinitum)".Which is an effective dis-speller of the appearance of separateness, I have discovered.If your mileage differs from mine, in this regard, I am happy to acknowledge that that difference is simply a manifestation of "this, not that".And I thank you for that manifestation.
it is impossible for a difference to manifest. only a union manifests. the manifested though makes a difference..good or bad...it is this difference , which includes a "separation"..... is the color of life , a celebration of life , a movement of life...
Well said both my friend's ... the esteemed Mr. Buddha was right on.
IMHO, seekers worry and fear far too much over their poor beleaguered egos.
There was another wise fellow, you may remember him, called Mr. Christ, He said: "Verily, I say unto you. It is easier for a camel to squeeze through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven (and let's not confuse this "heaven" with some afterlife paradise -- no such place. Christ was referring to the Heaven of "Fearlessness.")
Surely Christ was not suggesting that only the rich man has an "ego" (that sense of a personal self that has stewardship for a body-mind). Surely a poor man also has stewardship over his body-mind. But the difference is this: the rich man's ego can become so grossly over-identified, over-invested in, over-attached to the body-mind vessel, and all of its material possessions and encumbrances, and this Super-Ego now assumes such a greatly exaggerated sense of self-importance and self-aggrandizement, believing itself now owner and Captain of the vessel, that he can no longer see any other "Self." Furthermore, he now must live in constant *fear* of losing this sense of self, now exclusively attached to his body-mind, and all of its creature comforts.
The poor man's ego, on the other hand, is far less likely to feel such self-importance. He has little to lose. Hence far less reason to *fear*
So may I suggest that the problem is not with any sense of stewardship (ego) over one's human vessel (body-mind). The problem is total attachment to that impermanent vessel and its paraphernalia, as well as the *fear* of that vessel's inevitable demise, and forgetting completely (self-hypnosis) his true and only source of identity. His Divine Nature.
So the ego (a sense of stewardship for the body-mind) is not a problem. Allow the ego to do only what it was intended to do. Don't allow it to become some fear-mongering Tyrant, Rich man or Dictator. The real problem, as you say, is the attachment and the *Fear*
So yes, face impermanence and death head on. When that *fear* is faced, the ego is then free to do its job (stewardship for the body-mind) without *fear* of annihilation. For it knows its servant's role and function and can do it well.
*Fearlessness* awaits.
Embrace Life. Make love, not war.
>>>>>>So yes, face impermanence and death head on. When that *fear* is faced, the ego is then free to do its job (stewardship for the body-mind) without *fear* of annihilation. For it knows its servant's role and function and can do it well.
dear danny...it is impossible for a god to peer through ones eyes...because if there is such a thing as God ...than that peering/looking itself is GOD.
I have a question....are you able to relate it in any way(contradictory or other wise) to what you have said above?
----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>*Fearlessness* awaits.....
let me read you something very nice from chuangtzu..
Its called in some translations.........Being free from following is a freedom too....
HERE IT GOES::::::::
Yen Hui said, 'I am making progress.'
Kung-ni replied, 'What do you mean?'
'I have ceased to think of benevolence and righteousness,' was the reply.
'Very well; but that is not enough.'
Another day, Hui again saw Kung-ni, and said, 'I am making progress.'
'What do you mean?'
'I have lost all thought of ceremonies and music.'
'Very well, but that is not enough.'
A third day, Hui again saw (the Master), and said, 'I am making progress.'
'What do you mean?'
'I sit and forget everything.'
Kung-ni changed countenance, and said, 'What do you mean by saying that you sit and forget (everything)?'
Yen Hui replied,
'My connexion with the body and its parts is dissolved; my perceptive organs are discarded. Thus leaving my material form, and bidding farewell to my knowledge, I am become one with the Great Pervader. This I call sitting and forgetting all things.'
Kung-ni said,
'One (with that Pervader), you are free from all likings; so transformed, you are become impermanent. You have, indeed, become superior to me! I must ask leave to follow in your steps.'
SO DANNY IS FEARLESSNESS AWAITING? BUT I GOT A VERY VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION TO YOU MY FRIEND....
read the last para..."you are become impermanent" transformed....i must ask you to allow me........
why why ? danny why?? in becoming impermanent did the disciple earn the "heart" of the master?
are you able to relate it it any way to "divine consciousness/ or the prevador that the disciple speaks?"
-----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>Embrace Life. Make love, not war.
arjuna : o lord krishna on the other side are my, teachers uncles,...& brothers of my father and their children..., my brothers, on the other side are my grand fathers....
what use is battling them ...? what kingdom do I want by killing these whom I love so dearly...nay i dont need any kngdom or glory.....
AND HE THROWS DOWN HIS BOW AND LEAVES TEH BATTLE GROUND....
Lord krishna pulls him up by first giving him a warning ...do not be such a coward.......klaibhyam ma smagahmaha...partha....
thus starts the great Gita....the ancient song.....
I am not asking you to go on a rampage , but you must be getting the point.
take care danny boy/girl?
regards yours a very very very angry idiot...
Into the ineffable mystery we must inevitably go,
into the ever-new emptiness of the eternal flow ...
When one might ask? Now, now, and always now,
fearlessly into the center-less heart the Tao.
If right now is only a mind generated dream, there are no beings, only dreamers with story+self+ skit to do personhood convincingly in this dream. All three support the fiction someone exist to be a 'being' in the dream, the defense of which is what reality is all about. Mind is dreaming 'reality,' featuring dreamers using story +self+ skit to prolong the fiction dreamers are beings. When a dreamer wakes up in the dream, it knows nothing can prove a dreamer is a 'real being,' including story+self+skit. They are the props all dreamers require in the dream to do personhood believably. Since they can't prove people exist, their defense is "The Main Event" in reality (this dream mind is dreaming). Since they can't turn dreamers into people in a dream, clearly --- reality is a mind generated charade, featuring dreamers in skits in hot pursuit of a non existent goal. Reality provides the setting for the dreamers to defend the fiction it's possible to prove truth is false with s/s/s, aka "The Personhood Parody." Since no dreamer can defect one centimeter from its status as a dreamer in this dream, the burden falls to the skit to prolong the fiction dreamers are 'beings.' Dreamer 'Shakespeare' was in the know: "all the word's a stage," etc...