The Ego and "Seeing Things as they are"

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Eclectic Mystic

It is often said that through dissolution of the ego, one can see beyond its limited misconceptions and "see things as they are."

I don't know if we can fully see things as they are. But we can make an effort to see them less in terms of what we want them to be or in terms of our past conditioning.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by farhan

In Arabic the word "nafs" means ego/self, & breath. So the term dissolution of ego would mean something similar to suicide.

It seems there is not much consistency in the use of the term Nafs when used to refer to an individual self. Example:

Taj al-`arus al-hawi li tadhhib al-nufus is translated by an Islamic bookstore as "The bride's crown containing the discipline of souls." Compare with a Sunni Hanafi Muslim, who translates it as "The crown of [befitting] a bride – concerning the matter of disciplining the lower-self, the ego, the nafs."

nibrãs: November 2006.

In the above blog there is reference to the need to "imprison your nafs" (rather than expand). This seems consistent with the traditional emphasis on discipline and the importance of mastering or containing ones lower nature.

Also, in the above blog nafts are referred to as the experiential self that is capable of (undesirable/tainted) egoic pleasures.

The phrase used in Arabic/Persian is "Tazkiya-tun-nafs".

I have seen this translated as purification of the heart.

[omprem]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

I see what you mean, but I see a minor linguistic snag: how can there be 'ego expansion' when there is no ego to be expanded?

There is not even a self,
Like the image of the moon in water,
The cycle of the three worlds is misleading
~The Buddha

'Ego expansion' was a linguistic device to get people to think outside their box. Rather that considering themselves as individuated egos, the idea of spiritual transformation is know oneself as God or, if you don't like that term, to know oneself as One without another. This is the idea behind letting go of the individuated ego and accepting a radical expansion of who you are (in other words, ego expansion). It may have been clumsy but it may be useful to some.

I agree with the Buddha quote and was proposing 'ego expansion' as a way to approach the meaning of the quote.

From a Hindu, Advaita Vedanta point of view, spiritual transformation consists of having no content in your consciousness, having only Pure Consciousness that doesn't 'see' difference only unity and more.

[omprem]

Originally Posted by farhan

Ego is you & you is ego. You cannot dissolute you if there is no you left. Ego doesnt get dissoluted, it gets cleansed. Suppose you are in a car with a windscreen in front of you. If the windscreen is filled with dirt, or if there are too many flaws in the glass, it will distort your perception of reality & you wont see reality as it is.

The ego filled with its base desires, lusts, impulses, infatuations, repulsions serve to distort reality. When these flaws are removed, the ego gets pure & transparent. And lets the relaity through. So one sees things as they are. Because base impulses are usually seen as the only manifistation of ego, so the cleansing process is usually labelled as dissolution.

So related sufi concepts here.

Sufism and Baha'i have the seven valleys. Christians have the seven stages of prayer as exemplified by St Teresa of Avila's Interior Castle. Alchemists have the seven stages of transformation. Judaism has the Kabbalah. Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism know all of these as the seven chakras. Those at the heart of every religion know the same process of transformation, know the chakras, and know the same Absolute Divinity. They tend to have the same vision, speak the same language, and even use the same metaphors. Instead of quibbling over distinctions without a difference we should put away our limited egos and celebrate our common core of divine being.

[omprem]

Originally Posted by farhan

Well firstly, humility is the door to reality. So its good to be humble since an arrogant man can learn nothing. He will have to accept, only then can he learn.

Other than that, different cultures think differently. You ask the same question from Plato & Rumi, they might give the same answer, but they will answer according to their culture. In Christianity, there is the concept of renunciating the world, in Islam we have no such thing. Instead we have a similar but radically different concept, renunciation of worldly desires. The intent is the same, but the way one does it is different.

There is another facet of this problem, which has more to do with linguistics. In English, ego means both haughtiness & self. So, ego is always linked to being egoistic. When the intent of the speaker is "kill your haughtiness", he would say "kill your ego" , which the listener understands as "kill the self".

The concepts in my post come from Arabic & Persian; languages that have one word for the "being/existence of self", & another for its "base attributes". . In Arabic the word "nafs" means ego/self, & breath. So the term dissolution of ego would mean something similar to suicide. The phrase used in Arabic/Persian is "Tazkiya-tun-nafs". The word tazkiya comes from the root Z-K-A , which means both purification & expansion. So while in reality we do the same thing, in English, we label it as breaking the ego, in Arabic we call it expansion of ego.

All you are doing is locking yourself into a phenomenal view of reality which is a false view. The 'reality' of sense impression is an illusion and an addiction. It is the home of separation, estrangement, fear and despair. You have to find and use other, much more subtle means, ie, learning to access the wisdom of the chakras, to approaching spiritual transformation.

[omprem]

Originally Posted by farhan

In Arabic the word "nafs" means ego/self, & breath. So the term dissolution of ego would mean something similar to suicide.

As in the Christian idea of spiritual rebirth. I think all religions have the idea of dying to the mundane in order to know the Divine. This idea is just phrased differently in different religions/spiritual paths and it is too bad that people's individuated egos force them to emphasize supposed difference instead of the unity of vision.

Incidentally, 'nafs' as breath could be referring to prana as in all the Hindu scriptures. If so, then dissolution of the ego would mean cutting off any supply of prana to the lower chakras or talas below the Muladhara and instead taking prana up through the seven main chakras in order to know the Oneness of Divinity.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by omprem

'Ego expansion' was a linguistic device to get people to think outside their box. Rather that considering themselves as individuated egos, the idea of spiritual transformation is (to) know oneself as God

In the Sufi and Kabbalistic view, it might be G-d knowing Himself through His Creation. That way of seeing it actually makes more sense to me.

[Eclectic Mystic]

I'm not disagreeing with what any of you are saying. My point is, when I say something like "I'm perfectly fine the way I am," why do certain people have such a problem with this?

[omprem]

Originally Posted by Eclectic Mystic

I'm not disagreeing with what any of you are saying. My point is, when I say something like "I'm perfectly fine the way I am," why do certain people have such a problem with this?

Have you asked them?

[omprem]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

In the Sufi and Kabbalistic view, it might be G-d knowing Himself through His Creation. That way of seeing it actually makes more sense to me.

Sorry, but that notion makes zero sense to me. You have just limited God and made Him human, in the sense of having limits and frailties. If God needs know Himself and needs a creation to do it, then God is not perfection, nor omniscience, nor omnipotence, nor omnipresence.

Your view may well be a Kabballistic Old Testament view of God but I doubt very much that it is a Sufi view of God.

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by omprem

Sorry, but that notion makes zero sense to me. You have just limited God and made Him human, in the sense of having limits and frailties. If God needs know Himself and needs a creation to do it, then God is not perfection, nor omniscience, nor omnipotence, nor omnipresence.

Your view may well be a Kabballistic Old Testament view of God but I doubt very much that it is a Sufi view of God.

But it does raise the question of why creation exists in totality. If God is complete and self sustaining as pure being, why create what we know is suffering? This is why I believe creation is a necessity which you could say denies God's impotence since creation satisfies a need. An omnipotent God doesn't need. Yet I don't see any other explanation for the totality of creation other then it is necessary in relation to a basic need.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by omprem

Sorry, but that notion makes zero sense to me. You have just limited God and made Him human, in the sense of having limits and frailties. If God needs know Himself and needs a creation to do it, then God is not perfection, nor omniscience, nor omnipotence, nor omnipresence.

Not really - it doesn't limit God - it assumes God as observer.

It's rather profound, actually, especially in context with quantum physics and how an observer can fundamentally affect the direction of reality.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

In the Sufi and Kabbalistic view, it might be G-d knowing Himself through His Creation. That way of seeing it actually makes more sense to me.

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Not really - it doesn't limit God - it assumes God as observer.

It's rather profound, actually, especially in context with quantum physics and how an observer can fundamentally affect the direction of reality.

The bible says we can discern God's qualities from creation. If God is observing us, what does that tell us about God?

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by omprem

Your view may well be a Kabballistic Old Testament view of God but I doubt very much that it is a Sufi view of God.

It has been a Sufi view for over a thousand years.

My glance is the Divine glance (or my consciousness is the consciousness of the universe), the witness in the heavens...the light coming through our eyes is that of the heavenly witness... Ibn’ Arabi says we know God...by God Him/Herself. That’s a real breakthrough. That’s awakening.
~ Pir Vilayat Inayat Khan


God makes Himself known to us through Himself, reveals to us His knowledge of Himself through Himself.
~Ibn Arabi


When my Beloved appears,
With what eye do I see Him?
With His eye, not with mine,
For none sees Him except Himself.
~Ibn Arabi


It has no mouth, no tongue to speak, yet through our mouths that power is speaking. It has no eyes, yet it is observing through our eyes. It has no ears, yet it replies to the sounds that we hear with our own ears. It has no nose, but it senses fragrance through our sense of smell. It has no hands, but that power makes our hands the agency for giving and receiving. It has no feet or legs, but it walks throughout all the universes.
~M. R. Bawa Muhaiyaddeen

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

The bible says we can discern God's qualities from creation. If God is observing us, what does that tell us about God?

>>>>? ? ? <<<<
what does that tell us ??