There are times :-}

[martin]

Ha, another trap! But it is not the "obvious" one that I mentioned in my last post.

Perhaps I should explain.
What I mean by superego is the inner voice (or thought pattern, if you like) that tells us that we are no good, that we should change, become "better", conform to an ideal, etcetera.
That voice, when we listen to it, causes a lot of problems.
A tendency to live in the future instead of in the now is one of them. Feeling guilty when we fail to live the ideal life is another.
And so on, the list is nearly endless.

Okay, how do we solve those problems?
Now that voice comes in again and says, well, you should change, this is no good, you should become better ...

That is the trap, the vicious circle.
If we are trapped we continue to believe that we can solve our problems by "becoming better" and we don't see that that belief is in fact the cause of our problems ..

Did I make myself clear?

Martin

 

[louise]

You're right Martin, it is obvious. So I'll leave the trap bit alone.

The point I would like to pick up on is this - where Frandoch says guilt, sadness, remorse, bitterness, anger, regret, depression, hostility, resentment etc. These characteristics are all based on past experiences and all represent our inability to forgive ourselves and others for the past

All these things are part of our current human experience. If we were enlightened, self realised, whatever you wish to call it - sure we would not experience these emotions -

though "Jesus wept" even Jesus felt sad.

It would seem you are saying that all feeling, all movement of the heart is based on ego ? God Frandoch, thats a barren picture you paint.

But I digress from the point I am struggling to make, which I've made before, is that somehow your explanation is upside down - that is I believe when we are at one with all, enlightened etc then naturally all these feelings do not catch at us. But we do not reach that blessed place by falsely stamping down every natural emotional reaction we have - the detachment is the EFFECT of realisation NOT the CAUSE.

Yes of course it is desirable to have some restraint on the demands of the ego to get praise, be liked etc etc. We have to do that to manage in the world at all. But we can't brush all those nasty feelings away that you listed above, to attempt to do so can lead to mental ill health and a real 52, line 3 situation. I think part of our job here on planet earth is to work through those dark places, to understand their meaning, they are not valueless, they are part of the story God made up. What you seem to be advocating is merely concealment of the dark bits of the human psyche - but no good can come of that. It is my experience that if theres a hurt bit of us, it just doesn't work to push it aside and go away - it does work to listen to it and understand it and work to transform it.

I think the trap Martin refers to is of course the setting up of guidelines and limits about how we *should* be, this including the monitoring of the ego. But *shoulds* have no place in opening our awareness to God/the allthatis etc etc for that as I understand is purely love - and love is not interested in judging and scolding, in codes of conduct,self denial, self punishment. Also of course as soon as we have a set of *shoulds* our egos will get pretty active - whilst our superegos look on with approval or disapproval.

Is it any use for a doctor to say to a severely depressed patient "hey, this is just your naughty ego, forget your traumas they never happened". Sure if the patient were to attain Buddahood, he would not be depressed, but we have to work with what we've got, here and now, the best we can cos we can't buy our way back to our spirtual home.


BTW
The Id is our base desires - newborn babies being bundles of id - our need for immediate satifaction of physical needs.

Ego develops next to give us a handle on the real world, so we have a sense of self, the baby gets to understand he is not his mum.

Superego is the the imbibed moral values of the parents, which determines our stance to our own conduct, ie strict parents make strict superegos.

I'm not saying I would uphold these as definite psychological constructs, I was just trying to define the terms somewhat. I'm sure others could give much better definitions.

And I never thought it was any good to "follow the ways of the wise". No don't copy others - the main thing I thought is to surrender ones will, ones desire to 'fix' things to the intelligence of God - if you believe in God of course which I think I do. It is highly likley Gods wish is for you to be fully who you are, not to emulate anyone else, to be your own glorious self, on a path to be more fully yourself, hence more at one with him/her.

I agree with you we are immensely powerful, more so than we ever realised - more powerful when release our small selves and let the big self do the steering. Probably Frandoch, I fundamentally agree with your ideas, but get stuck when you seem to advocate the dismissal of feelings such as sadness etc as being somehow wrong because they are part of the ego.

I am exhausted now, can't express my objections to your ego ideas more clearly than I have - falls in heap on floor - I hope someone knows what I'm on about.

Martin I think the ego looks something like this

 

[frandoch]

Martin,

Thank you for your reply. I avoided being drawn into a discussion about your 'obvious' trap, until you defined some terms, which you have now done, and very clearly. Now you have defined what you meant by the term 'superego' I agree with everything you said.

But if you read what I wrote in my piece on the ego, nowhere did I suggest that we should be 'better'. Nor have I ever suggested that we should destroy the ego, which others have suggested I said. The ego is essential for inter-relating with other people, other egos, and is a tool, a very useful one. But for many people the ego is their master, not their servant.

When I suggest that we must transcend the ego, I mean that we must realise that it is an illusion, but nevertheless a useful one, provided we are in control of it, and not the other way round.

Did I make myself clear?

Michael F.

 

[louise]

Oops, missed the last couple of posts while I was writing mine, and yes Martin that was really clear, thankyou for saying what I find so hard to articulate.

 

[frandoch]

Hi there all,

We have a discussion going. Excellent. Unfortunately, in one way, I have to go out now, but I'll be back tomorrow.

Blessings,

Frandoch.

 

[martin]

It's a pity, but I also have to leave now.
Back on line tomorrow night, I hope.

All the best,

Martin

 

[cal val]

Martin and Louise...

Great stuff. Rather than try to transcend the ego...I just accept my'self.' Rather than try to transcend those emotions Mr. Frandoch cited...I just accept them as valid. That done, I have established a relationship of trust with my'self' and we have some great dialogs about those emotions. Consequently I'm learning tons, AND...she lets me borrow her clothes...*grin*

Cheerio the noo,

Val

 

[alexis]

It seems to me that the I Ching is a very helpful and insightful collection of "ideal" ways of behavior and approaches befitting grand masters (who don't need to cast hexagrams to know the proper way of dealing with a situation anyway) and perhaps a little misleading for everyday folk who still believe that the responses we get from it are a means of manipulating circumstances to create outcomes to our liking.

In this sense, the suggestions for perfect human behavior can lead us imperfect people astray if we don't understand that our evolution and growth is dependent primarily on developing our ego's more fully, more completely, in order that we can bring our inner hidden selves into full conscious awareness for ourselves. Attempting to model the perfect behavior of the I Ching may for many of us be a premature step which keeps us believing that we can get to the other side without actually entering the (wicked) ego's territory. Meaning, as long as we're "good" in other people's eyes then the solution lies in hiding the unattractive parts of ourselves away and all is well. Well, this is just a misleading fantasy, but it's just my opinion.

Again, the I Ching has been tremendously helpful to me over the years, so I am not knocking it. What I am saying is that in some ways it is too biased on the side of "good" and so lacks a certain down-to-earth quality that many people actually need to be, and stay, "real".

Alexis

 

[malka]

Alexis,

The I Ching is biased on the side of good! There is a statistical equation (perhaps someone here knows it?) that shows the number of coins DOES lean towards offering positive answers more often than not. The reason for this that I've been told by others more experienced than myself, and what also feels right to me, is that the world is divine -- the world is good -- this is why the I Ching reflects such goodness in it's biased answers.

I'm saddened by your view of the I Ching being used as a, "means of manipulating circumstances to create outcomes to our liking." Perhaps some do feel this way. What I feel, and friends I know who consult the oracle also feel is that it's guidance to, "help make sure I'm flowing with, and not against, the natural unfolding of events as they must be." I want to know where I may be creating a blockage due to my own fears, how I could expand my thinking, or relax into my own knowing. This is the kind of help I beleive I receive from the oracle.

I beleive there is no such thing as hiding. We may kid ourselves, but in truth all is always known.

Your note here does help me to not take your response to my other post quite as personally. Thank you!

 

[anita]

Hmmm the EGO again. When my guruji told me that my ego has caused me many miseries, I asked what she meant by EGO. I think there are many definitions to the ego and one can get very confused. I was told that it is because of the ego that one feels anger or hurt.

Much has been made clear to me by guruji's answer. And much is clear to me too because I have finally understood the concept of karma. What you sow you reap. So grit your teeth and bear it when what you face is unpleasant. Which doesn't mean stay in the rot either.

Best for your Quest

Anita

 

[gene]

Yes, many definitions for ego, and different people use the term differently. Here in the context of what I believe Anita is talking about, I would like to add that ego is what we use to separate ourselves from others. It is our mask, our persona, the image we present to others. The problem, the hurts and pains come when reality bumps up against our image of who we are. In actuality what is happening is the cosmic order is trying to reveal our true self to us, and that can be frightening, because it dashes the unrealistic concept we have of ourselves. We often look down on others who have sinned, who have committed trespasses of one kind or another. We make judgments regarding our goodness versus someone elses. But the cosmic order does not do this. The rain falls on the just and the unjust, as does the sunshine, and all is well. The weeds are as much a part of the plan of the cosmic order as are the flowers. We are no better, and no worse than anyone else. In fact, we are everyone else.

Gene

 

[gene]

One more thing here about the ego. There is nothing wrong with having an ego per se. But one has to be aware of the pickles it gets us into. The ego is fear based. It fears because it sees itself as separate and outside of everything around it. Since there is no inherent relationship, then events that happen outside of us are at random, and have no bearing and meaning on our life, if we are lucky we get good things, if we are not so lucky, we experience a bad fate. In those terms, and in that way of thinking, then one cannot help but be fearful, for he/she knows not what tomorrow may bring. Will fate be kind? Will it work against us? It is just like a gambling table. We play hoping today will be our lucky day. Of course we don't have much pity on the others who did not have such a lucky day and lost to us. But we play fate as if it were chance. I chanced to win $50 today in the lottery. I chanced to get run over by a steam roller, it is all chance. But the I Ching tells us different. It tells us there is a cosmic relationship, and it is real. It tells us that by opening up to it, we can bring fate more to our side. It tells us that we don't have to be fearful. Fear necessarily leads to hurt and pain. We think fate is hostile to us. We don't see the long term picture, like the person in hexagram 20 line 2. All we think of is how it affects us here and now.

When we try to go it alone, we become like the hunter in hexagram 3 line 3. We have no guide. We have no guide because we do not realize the relationship between the inner and the outer worlds. Since we are not familiar with the inner, we need a guide. The I Ching itself. By following the advice of the I Ching, by submitting ourselves to its teachings, we allow it to become our guide, and it leads through the forest of the inner world to our game. By realizing the relationship between the inner world and the outer, our fears dissolve, and we can move forward with confidence, finding the deer in the forest. If we do not follow the I Ching's guidance, then in line four, horse and wagon part. The inner and the outer worlds do not relate, and whatever happens to us happens by chance. So once again we strive for union.

Gene

 

[gene]

In looking back over the posts again here, I realize we have a very superb discussion going on, seems to be also without egos getting so involved there is a war going on.

A lot of what I see seems to boil down to definitions that are different for one person than another.

I was especially interested in the concept that the I Ching is biased on the side of good. That is partly the nature of the supposed dispute between confucian scholars and Daoists. The Daoists were not so concerned with good as they were with the natural order. The confucianists were more concerned about the proper basis for society, and the rules that make a social order work. The Daoists, in effect, said, just let the people farm their lands, the rest will take care of itself. (In a manner of speaking anyway.) I personally believe there is some relevance to both concepts, and ultimately, they boil down to the advice the sage gives us, not just to be good, but to be in harmony with the requirements of the time. Ocassionally lines are not in their proper place or central, but they are still in harmony with the time so the judgment is auspicious.

Gene

 

[martin]

The ego is a thing, said Sartre.
In the language of Advaita (Sartre would use different words): the ego is an object of perception.
How could that object possibly be me?
I am the subject!

Spinoza said: God has no attributes.
The same could be said about the subject. Only an object can have properties.

But, well, that is just philosophy, or "elephant shit" as Fritz Perls used to call it.
I have come to believe that every explanation of this ego issue is ultimately wrong and misleading.
There is a big big gap between "understanding" and understanding.
And forget it, there is no bridge.
Zen knows that. UG also knows it.
"There is no way out."
I like that statement, although it may not be entirely true ...

Martin

 

[anita]

Martin,

Very confusing. Does the Advaita imply that you're not an object? Is the whole quote from the Advaita or only the first line - the ego is the object of perception ? I don't think you understand what that means entirely. I think the Advaita is referring to the ego being born from the process of perception itself. So perception is Maya - illusion. We perceive that we are wronged. And then rises anger and hurt. But reality is that we ourselves have wronged.

 

[frandoch]

On another thread Martin wrote:

Dear Michael F,

"Both parties must avoid acting out ego desires".
I couldn't stop laughing when I read that.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha!

Thanks for the fun!
Yours truly,

Martin

It's nice to know I've made a positive contribution to this board. LOLOL. And as an extra treat, Martin, you can have another chuckle at my expense.

I posted my piece on 'Ego and the I Ching', and from the responses, I realised that I had put forward an argument without defining my words. That was done in previous chapters that you hadn?t seen. I'll put that right in another post, but for now I'd like to talk to Louise.

You said in your post: 'But we do not reach that blessed place by falsely stamping down every natural emotional reaction we have - the detachment is the EFFECT of realisation NOT the CAUSE.'

Absolutely - couldn't agree more.

You also said: 'It would seem you are saying that all feeling, all movement of the heart is based on ego ? God Frandoch, that's a barren picture you paint.'

Oh Louise - you couldn't be more wrong. It's not barren in any way - it's awesome, wondrous, magical. I wish I could wave a magic wand and give it to you, but I can't - but perhaps what I can do is point a finger - plant a seed - so that you know that such a place exists.

It's not a question of stamping down, or suppressing negative emotions. There is a place where you don't have to experience them. Think of a soap opera on TV. You sit back and watch pure egos fighting , screaming, shouting, trying to manipulate everything - but you don?t have to get involved - you can chuckle, laugh at their crazy antics, their insanity. You can do that with yourself, as well. The ?real? you can step back and be a silent witness and observe your ego interacting with other egos. The only thing that breaks that silence is helpless laughter. I laugh a lot at the stupid things my ego gets up to, but ?I? don?t have to get involved, ?I? don?t have to suffer.

Think of going to a movie. You know that the people on the screen aren?t really there. You know that it isn?t even a movie, just a rapid series of still photos projected onto a screen. But, you can choose to suspend disbelief, and enjoy the experience, even though you know it?s unreal - that?s it?s an illusion. It?s the same with life.

Every morning when I awake, I feel 'WOW' - pure joy, just at being alive. That doesn't mean that my life situation is always 'good' - it frequently isn't. I get my share of 'problems' - in fact I sometimes think that Spirit uses me for target practice. But it never gets me down. I don't do 'down'. Not any more. For many years I suffered from severe depression, so I know what down is.

I always believed it was possible to live in a state of bliss, but I had a worry. We are told that you can?t have the mountain without the valley - you can?t have the crest of the wave without the trough. But I didn?t want the troughs, and everyone said that if I managed to get rid of the troughs, I would get rid of the crests as well and that life would be flat, dull boring. But it turned out that you can transcend the duality, the opposites, and live in a state of joy, of peace. You can still experience life, the ups and downs, but you don?t have to suffer, because you know that you are choosing to experience it - that you are actually creating it.

So, where is this place? It?s here and now - the present moment. In the present moment, the ego isn?t in control - ?you? are - you can choose to experience the present moment without suffering. Let me explain that. Consider pain. Pain is neither good nor bad - it?s neutral - it may be a signal that something is out of balance. Pain just is. Suffering, as I use the term, is our psychological response to the pain. We try to avoid it, and we start on the ?what if?.?. OK - it?s fine to go and have it checked out, if you?re worried about it. Observe animals when they?re in pain. They usually creep off into a corner, lick themselves, lie down and wait. They don?t appear to be suffering - they seem to just accept it. I believe that we can learn from this.

Suffering is resistance to ?what is? - which is totally pointless. ?What is? is simply ?What is?. Think about a swimmer in a fast-flowing river, swimming against the current. You know he?s not going to get anywhere. He will reach the point of exhaustion, and then the flow will take him anyway. Much better were he to go with the flow, and use his energy to steer round obstacles. Just like life. I?m reminded of a prayer, which goes something like:

?Grant me the courage to change those things I can change; grant me the fortitude to accept those things I cannot change; but above all, grant me the wisdom to know the difference between the two.?

If you can take that on board, and really live it, you?ll have life sussed.

I have a favourite quote: ?What is the point in getting upset about things you can?t change.? People will say ?You can?t help getting upset? - but you can - you can choose not to. You see, I believe that we are all infinite and eternal, and that we cannot come to harm - that all ?suffering? is ego - an illusion. But that doesn?t make me callous, or indifferent to the suffering of others - quite the reverse. It?s the other side of the coin of love - it?s called compassion. You give love, comfort and support - and it?s not false - it?s very real.

And Martin, it is possible to be in a relationship that is not controlled by ego demands. How?
Accept the other person totally. Make no attempt to change them. Have no demands or expectations. Give. Receive their gifts, but don?t take.

It?s rare, but I?ve seen it - I?ve even been there. Why aren?t I still there? Six years ago, after 10 years together, my partner chose someone else. Did it hurt?? Oh yes - it hurt, but the pain was the start of a learning process, that has brought me to where I am now, to what I?ve been talking about here.

Michael F.

 

[cheiron]

Wow Michael! (Chuckles)

There?s some real peaches in there?

?Think of a soap opera on TV. You sit back
and watch pure egos fighting , screaming, shouting, trying
to manipulate everything - but you don?t have to get
involved - you can chuckle, laugh at their crazy antics,
their insanity. ?

?But, you can choose to suspend disbelief, and enjoy
the experience, even though you know it?s unreal - that?s
it?s an illusion. It?s the same with life.?

And a few more?

Thanks? Enjoyed those ideas.

Much better than reductive definitions anyway IMHO.

Guess Clarity is a soap too eh?

Warm wishes

--kevin

 

[martin]

Hello Anita,

There was no (direct) quote from Advaita in what I wrote.
I merely tried to translate Sartres ideas (that is, my interpretation of his ideas!) in a language that is more or less Advaitic.

As you know, different Advaita teachers approach the issue in different ways.
I don't know if any of them would agree with the statement "the ego is an object of perception".
Perhaps Ramana would.

Hope this clears up the confusion,

All the best,

Martin

 

[frandoch]

Hi Kevin,

Glad you enjoyed it. And yes, Clarity is a soap, occasionally - remember the recent fisticuffs - the War Room etc?? I could have sat back and chuckled at their crazy antics, but instead, I chose to suspend my disbelief, experience their 'reality' and try to heal some wounded egos. Just like life really. LOLOL.

Michael F.

 

[martin]

Hi Michael,

I started laughing when my mind created pictures of your advice "Both parties should refrain from acting out ego desires" hanging on the wall above the bed of a married couple, in the office of a marriage counselor, in the office of a lawyer who deals with divorces, etcetera.

But, of course I understand what you are trying to say.

Martin

 

[gene]

Hello Michael F

What you say is very appropriate. And it is the basis for the teaching of the I Ching and most eastern religion.

Gene

 

[frandoch]

Hi Martin,

Perhaps I should rephrase my advice to 'ALL parties........' to include the lawyer and the marriage counsellor.

But I like the image of the sign above the bed of the couple.

returned.

Michael F.

 

[tashiiij]

frandoch,

how did you get there? how were you transferred over to this state ,--- to where you can watch the 'ego' antics humorously without the attachment-----? did you begin a process of only concentrating on the now? something lke what heylise talks about in another thread.

the title of this discussion is "there are times" and i really relate to that. what i sometimes wonder , is that i may inadvertantly misunderstand --that i am unable to really understand the iching's advice; that i use it to construct a narrative of and with abstact concepts; that by doing so i merely bark at my shadow, rather than truely hear a new perspective... that i color guidance from the yi with my limited perspective.

for examle, if i were to concentrate on the now, the present, i probably would want to take three coins and a couple translations with me to dialog with that 'now'!!! how to do that now!!!!!! how present is that??!! ha ha ha!!!. i sometimes think "i'm not going to be able to take the i ching with me thru my death...to guide the trasition..." what's up with that!!!

anyway.

alll the best---

tashij

 

[cheiron]

Hi Tashiij

While we wait for Frandoch?s reply?

I really relate to ?that by doing so i merely bark at my shadow, rather than truely hear a new perspective... that I color guidance from the yi with my limited perspective? Ughhh? got all the T-shirts on that one

You raise an interesting point? I think the idea in many ?Eastern approaches? is that by dropping ones constant thinking of the future one can see the present more clearly. ?Futuring? is a game that the ego/mind loves to play with and it can be a noisy distraction.

Similarly by dropping thoughts of the past we can drop our learned fears and pre-conceptions which again inhibit clear seeing of the situation now.

Martin, if I understood him correctly, raised a very interesting point. If we perceive everything through the Ego then even the ?dropping of the Ego? is an ego game? but there is a loophole

I believe we can perceive through our ?heart? or unconscious? that?s a bit crude but I don?t want to get caught up in writing a book here

This deeper self perhaps can perceive a ?truth? when the Ego is quiet enough to let us hear it. It uses the symbolic language that Jung puts forth and which the Yi Jing is so full of.

But there is a catch, perhaps? If we were always to be able to let go thoughts of the past then we would be dumping hard won experience. Also we would not process things and learn.

If we were able always never to think of the future then we would be a little impractical with regard to managing in the concrete world?

As always the middle road seems to be the way? One day, just one day I will stop wondering off it into mires

All the best

--Kevin

 

[malka]

Allow me to clear up a few things about eastern philosophy, at least Buddhism --

When Buddhist speak of being present, and letting go of the past and the future, this DOES NOT mean to "pretend that the past didn't happen." It also doesn't mean to "never think of the future."

Please, please read any of Pema Chodron's books. I especially reccommend "The Places That Scare You." Also, Jack Kornfields, "The Path of Heart" is wonderful.

Buddhism speaks of "quieting the mind" in other words, to stop the constant chatter of tapes that replay, over and over again, a scene, or conversation that has already happened, or never happened. This is referred to as "grasping" or attachment. Very briefly, Buddhists believe that human suffering is the result of such grasping or attachments. That when we find ourselves unable (or unwilling) to rest quietly in the present moment with complete acceptance (acceptance does NOT need to mean liking what's happening, or approving)then we are free from the suffering that is generated from the disconnect between what is actually happening, and our minds's grasping to something different.

The present moment may be filled joy, with sorrow, happiness, or pain. The Buddhist view is to feel it all, whatever it is. In doing so, we allow ourselves to not get "stuck" (or attached).

Children in Tibet are taught about the natural flow of emotions but learning to change their emotion at the clap of a hand as a kind of game. The learning is that emotions flow. Everything comes, and everything goes. Rise and fall. So to be in the present moment means to flow with the natural unfolding of events in the universe.

I beleive the I Ching helps me to see more clearly into this natural unfolding. To be present. And when I seem to have the most difficult time with her is when I'm not HERE, but over somewhere else in wish-ville.

Being in the moment does mean to pretend past experiences or learnings didn't happen. It also doesn't mean not planning for retirement. How impractical! It does mean to listen very closely to everything. Listen to ourselves, listen to others. To be with what is really happening, right now.

More importantly, Buddhism and other eastern philosophy isn't an intellectual exercise. Therefore, it's difficult to "know" it by reading about it. The knowing comes through experiencing. Vipassana meditation, or mindfulness, is the simplest way to gain this experience. Then, when you experience the quiet mind, you will know. You will see how you are BETTER able to draw upon your past experience and knowledge when it comes from a place of conscious choice. But for me to write about this, or you to read it, doesn't do it justice at all.

For those of you very heavy into traditional Freudian psychological terms, you might enjoy the book, "Thoughts without a Thinker" which is a close examination of psychodynamics and Buddhist psychology by Mark Espstein.

It is neither a bad thing nor a good thing to "act from ones ego" or to "have desires" as this is all part of the human experience. To lable experiences as good or bad is very limiting, and another tool that takes us away from the present moment. So if you want a piece of chocolate, have a piece of chocolate! But...is it chocolate you really want?

Being in the present moment allows us to discern when it's a simple desire for a piece of chocolate, and when the chocolate has been assigned a role of distracting us from a discomfort or displeasure. Because sugar does "cover up" and layer over our feelings and creates a "good" nice feeling for most of us, is it the chocolate we wanted or is it a desire for that "feeling" which is difference from the actually feeling of discomfort that's really happening right now?

If we are taking the chocolate because an image of our lover leaving us has just ever so briefly arisen in our minds, and together with it a very small and quiet sense pain or anxiety, but because we are not so closely listening to ourselves or watching our minds that we miss it -- and instead of just feeling the little wave of discomfort and allowing it to then pass we grab for the chocolate that happens to be in the bowl nearby, we are not being present and this chocolate is not "clean." The chocolate has become a tool to anestisize (spelling?) us away from the present moment. Yes, Buddhism is about being this aware, to every little second of our lives. This is what it is to be "in the present moment."

Hope this all makes sense!

 

[dharma]

Ego and it's dissolution... indeed, how does one get there? That is the most crucial question.

Those who are glimpsing the truth are doing so in increments and for the most part are caught up in ego struggles of their own because if they'd already managed to dissolve ego fully there would be absolutely no need for them to come here and bounce their ideas off of others in a discussion of this sort. Myself included.

In that sense, one man's crazy antics on this board is another man's journey to wholeness despite the other man's judgement of his behaviour. And along the same lines, one man's witty intellectual discourse is another man's bogus ego-posturing despite the political correctness of the approach. Both avenues are attempts towards the healing of the original wounds and divisions within that cause one to perceive the illusion of separation in the first place. That we choose different methods and approaches at different times in our lives, and as compared to others, is because of the individual need for experimentation and direct experience.

We all require different means of getting to the same place precisely because we are different aspects of the One Mind. It is also important to recognize that one's present chosen way is not necessarily the BEST way or the ONLY way to get there. Flinging the word ego about like a dirty word, with the implication that to have one is an offensive and embarrassing thing, only perpetuates the myth that to have an ego is inherently wrong, when in fact it serves the purpose of individuating and that complete individuation is the ULTIMATE door that leads to ego dissolution. Thus building a strong ego-container is the KEY that will open that door. Any other way is a lie upheld by ego-fear and meant to control and paralyze the process... precisely because ego demands to have it's day.

Complete ego dissolution is not likely for most of us to occur in this one lifetime, although I understand that it can, but developing the inner courage and fortitude to build a strong ego-container is a powerful benefit that carries over into other lifetimes.

We will be free of ego when we stop dreading it. As long as we try to eradicate it by judging it unworthy, we will remain in it's hold.

We will judge ego as unworthy if we only allow ourselves to witness its true power in others but never in ourselves. And, often we will resent those that expose our own weak and ineffective egos by comparison.

We will build strong ego-containers when we grasp the long-term value in doing so and we will only achieve success if we resist the fears from the crowds of weaker egos that will try to sway us away from the proper course.

We will stay the whole course only if we accept the demanding conditions and come to understand that the ultimate reward lies in the persistence of daring. The journey is through the ego's territory (as Alexis alluded earlier), NOT away from it.

We will develop more confidence in the overall process when we dare to embark on this journey because trust in the natural order of things to lead us to wholeness IS the main program on the agenda of building ego. Following the spontaneous impulses of the ego causes the natural voice of intuition to come through clearly and its promptings to be followed. Give the ego a voice, a platform to express it's uniqueness, fully and completely, and when it finally feels respected and heard it will quiet down. Otherwise, one will always be caught up in an internal struggle with it as it attempts to assert itself and in the process muffles the guidance of one's intuition.

It is the lack of trust in the inherent goodness of the deeper order of things to lead rightly and an apprehension of the overwhelming judgements that others direct at us that keeps the natural journey of ego-building from following it's instinctive process. Ego has it's place in the order of things; we thwart the process by withdrawing our love and acceptance from precisely where it's needed.

Demitra M. N.
(copyright)

 

[tashiiij]

wise words, dharma. saddhu saddhu saddhu.


copy on that, malka, cheiron.

good to read. good to take in.

 

[lenardthefast]

Dharma, Malka, Cheiron and Frandoch,

I am enjoying throughly the tapestry you have woven in this thread. Four egos presenting their perceptions of ego. Perhaps there is hope after all. Thanks for your forthrightness and keep it coming. Bravo! My ego even took the time to come out of its sumptious quarters and take a peek.

Namaste,
Leonard

 

[frandoch]

Hi Leonard,

Good one - I like it.

I have things to do, and the above excellent stuff to absorb before I reply, but I'll be back later.

Michael F.

 

[lindsay]

I couldn?t agree less with many of the opinions on this page. I may have intellectual tendencies (which have cost me a lot of time and hard work to cultivate), but I know derivative, fuzzy-minded, self-indulgent New Age rubbish when I hear it. The problem here is not Ego but Ignorance. How refreshing it would be to listen to someone talk about something they really understood through significant personal struggle and effort. Authenticity seems to be what is missing is this discussion.

Lindsay