WHAT IS THE EGO? Mata Amritanandamayi

[pseudonymous]

WHAT IS THE EGO? Mata Amritanandamayi
(taken from an interview. Her comments are in quotes, and my responses are preceded by ">" symbol - pseudonymous)

"The mind is the ego. But the ego is a big lie...it is a liar. It is unreal."

> I think the mind asleep is the ego, but there exists the mind awake too. This is my perception, and is based upon the consciousness that is evolving in matter being a mind dreaming. The idea of there being no mind in the East is based on believing we are one with the void, which I do not agree with.

"The ego is an illusion with no existence of its own. It appears to be real because of the power it derives from the Atman [Self]. It is animated by the Atman. The ego itself can be compared to dead matter; for without the Atman, it would have no life. Stop supporting the ego, and it will withdraw and disappear. We ourselves lend the unreal ego its reality. Expose it for what it is, or rather, for what it isn't, and that will be the end of it."

> I question whether an ego has no existence of its own. A spirit is afterall an ego (personality) without a body. Having dealt with literally thousands of spirits, I can assure you that they were not Self-aware, so there were in fact still egoic (dreaming). Her statements above say that the ego is animated by the Self (atman). That would suggest conscious action, which I see no proof of. I think it is another misconception of the unaware that the ego will withdraw and disappear. As a part of creation, it is locked in. It is your detachment, and not its disappearance that makes you free. Of course, as long as you are in a body, no matter how transcended you think you are, you still have a physical ego...otherwise why are you connected to it?

"The ego consists of our thoughts and our mind. Our thoughts are our own creation. We make them real by cooperating with them. If we withdraw our support, they will dissolve."

> I think it is very important to say "our thoughts are our own unconscious creation". It adds a dimension to self awareness that she skims over here. It has been my experience that you do in fact create emotionally/mentally what you focus on, or cooperate with in her words. I don't agree that they dissolve if you focus elsewhere. These patterns resurface indefinitely, but our attachment to them diminishes. Again, once created, they (energy patterns) are locked in.

"A true master creates the situations that will allow the seeker to come out of his or her dream. The disciple wants to continue to sleep and to dream, but the master wants to awaken him or her. The whole effort of the master is to somehow bring the disciple back to the reality of his or her true existence."

> and there is no choice involved for master or disciple in this relationship. Both are under the influence of the One awakening. Any perception less than this is egoic. We are brought together by the One, and serve from the One. This has been my relationship with those I have served, but using the word "Master" to describe myself only caused emotional baggage.

"Shraddha is more than just faith. It is trust and love. Both trust and love are necessary to transcend the ego trust in the existence of a higher reality, love for that reality and an intense longing to realize it."

> one undertaking the transcendence of the ego should not expect any audience, such as family & friends, to support such a task. Egos do not support another ego becoming detached from egoic things.

"There is a divine message hidden behind every experience life brings you both the positive and negative experiences. Just penetrate beneath the surface and you will receive the message. Nothing comes from outside; everything is within you. The whole universe is within you."

> this is certainly true for someone aware. From a perception of unconsciousness, however, all teachers are external. Created unconsciously within, yes, but perceived externally.

"On the spiritual journey, we have to really listen to and then contemplate what the master says. We have to be humble in order to receive. When we really listen and then sincerely contemplate, we will assimilate the teachings properly."

> One of the keys to receiving what a master has to offer is to not compare what is said to what you have heard. If you assume the teacher arrived because you were ready to progress, then why look backwards every time the teacher points you forward. Perceptions are meant to change, sometimes dramatically, when evolving.

"Why would a realized master crave adulation or power? Those who do are still under the grip of the ego. They may claim to be realized, but they are not. A perfect master doesn't claim anything. He simply is he is presence."

> It is this presence that is the actual One being realized within the dream. It is the being of the One coming through a cell of the dream of creation. It is not the words spoken by a master that enables the disciple to evolve. This presence is the initiator of evolution in the teacher/student relationship.

"Only someone who is not realized will think, "I am spiritual, I am realized," and this will create a strong, subtle ego. A subtle ego is more dangerous than a gross ego. Even the individuals themselves won't understand that the subtle ego is leading or motivating them, and this subtle ego will become part of their nature."

> This is a huge cancer of the everyone can be "enlightened" in our politically correct, even playing field emotional mentality. There has been a steady dummying down of self-awareness studies this past century. What used to be something sacred, and holy, is now attainable for $500 and a weekend in the desert. The unfortunate effect of this is that earnest seekers have to go through a lot of weeds to find the affective teachings out there. This is mostly due to the fact that the honest teachers are most usually not flashy or heavily advertised. A great teacher awaits the ready student to discover them. That way it is known they are supposed to be there. The spiritual community, it should be noted to anyone starting out, is a multi-billion dollar industry, second only to religion in its thirst for money and egoic power.

 

[iBrian]

Certainly interesting - thanks for that.

The ego was referenced it on another thread - if I may, I'd like to address it more thoroughly here.

I do not believe that it would serve as a contradiction to say that the ego is founded essentially in our sense of self - a result of our sentience.

Therefore I find ego a necessary part of humanity - in which case the issue is not "how can I destroy it?" as much as "how can I work most constructively with it?"

Perhaps that is a little heretical - but I have difficulty seeing "ego-death" applied in practical terms, other than as the death of the self - literally - ie, mental and physical death.

Even the act of putting the self forth as a teacher is an act of ego (in my own term of reference) as it still requires a sense of "I" that is regarded with specific value - ie, as stated in the original post:

"Only someone who is not realized will think, "I am spiritual, I am realized,"

I've noticed that spirituality is very much a form of directions and degrees - every personal system has its different directions and degrees. The worst flaw, perhaps, is in too much accepting any particular personal system without recognising its flaws, for only as the flaws are actualised and self-doubt allowed to flourish will the questor ever continue on their own very personal path.

And at the very heart of that spiritual path is the ego - asking "why" and pushing on until answered.

Perhaps...

 

[pseudonymous]

brian,

it is refreshing to hear someone but myself state that "ego-death" or even the state of non-duality is a perceptional illusion. i am fortunate that i am not steeped in eastern or western disciplines. i was riding a horse when "god" came calling me, and i was reluctant at best as an atheist at the time to be serving something i had previously felt was not there.

i just assumed that everyone who meditated, and got to states that were transcendent, knew there was a witness experiencing it. i was surprised in sharing my explorations into self awareness that this is actually seen as a limited experience. our states were essentially the same, except i had not been told by 4000 years of discipline what to define my experience as.

i have always countered eastern disciples with two facts that they seem unable to address, except by patronizing and getting pissed off (odd for people who have transcended their egos):

#1) if there was no witness, then how can you explain the experience you had? you should be coming out of the state not aware you went into any state: "how was the meditation, bob?" "what meditation? i didn't meditate?...did i?...come to think of it, where'd the last two hours go?"

#2) if the ego had actually died, then why did you return to a body, let alone the same body? and what is the "who" that returns to the body? one would wonder why the attraction to the same body if there were no attachments.

pseudonymous

 

[iBrian]

Can't say I've been particularly steeped in any discipline either. I simply have my own experiences, and have never found a "pidgeon-hole" to snugly fit my personal belief system.

As for the arguments you present - perhaps there is also the notion of miscommunication occuring. Sometimes the use of words applied by specific groups are extremely specific in their meaning - whereas a common usage may have a far broader representation. For example, to many Christians the term "God" applies to a Creator who is manifest as three aspects, one of which is incarnate in human form as "Jesus Christ". Obviously, non-Christian use of the term "God" will usually differ from this.

I've noticed you have your own distinctive use of terms of reference - the witness adn the dream - this is not something that immediately speaks to myself, though as the sentence I highlighted did then I presume the issue is one of language itself, eather than the actual semantics.

As I like to think that many of us share the same fundamental ideas, simply experssed with different words, then where I find disagreement with others my first instinct is to check to see whether it is a miscommunication with regards to the specific words involved.

This is especially necessary as I tend to be flagrantly broad in my application of terms, which can be very confusing for those with a more specific definition.

In this instance, I am referencing "ego" more from the pschoanalytical* angle, rather than a specific Eastern prespective (which I freely admit I have done precious little reading about).

* No doubt I will be drawn to an error of application by the Jungians!!

 

[Sacredstar]

Just sharing another perspective


EGO, Misconstrued, Maligned and Mistrusted

I responded the dictionary says that EGO is the I, the self.

GOD said: SPOT ON! The I AM presence.

I smiled and then responded: It also says it’s our self-confidence and where we are self-centered.

GOD said: Turn that around and it is the center of the self which is the Solar Plexus, Solar is a representation of the sun and the sun has represented God to many ancient civilizations, the word Plexus means network. I responded: I am beginning to see the connection to God.

Egoist is one who speaks too much of himself. GOD said God is probably the most spoken about energy on this planet’ at this point I started to laugh then I responded: Egotheism the deification of the self, identification of oneself with God.

GOD said: Is this not what this age of enlightenment is all about?

I thought more deeply about this profound message, then I responded: Whoever taught us that the ego was bad never really understood God and the I AM presence and I think that GOD is right! He/She has been misconstrued, maligned and mistrusted. Time to take our power back and be the love force I AM GOD in manifestation on the earth plane.

I AM starting to get the feeling that so much of what we have been taught has been interpreted in a way, to stop us coming into oneness with the source. GOD said: You are correct and this goes back to the time of Methuselah.

Who’s he?

GOD said: Methuselah was an old testament patriarch.

I get the feeling that a conspiracy is being revealed!

GOD said: Now Methuselah was taught by his father ENOCH and his grandson was NOAH. Now you are led to believe that the whole human race descended from Noah because the rest drowned in the floods. It was Enoch who foretold God,s coming with holy myriads to execute judgement against the ungodly masses. It was Enoch the prophet who misconstrued the teachings from God and passed them on to his son.

Archangel Michael said beloveds build up yourselves and your faith in us, keep yourself in the love of God. Give mercy to those that do not believe in eternal life, have compassion, make a difference to your world, refrain from fear. Now unto him that he is able to keep you from falling and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy. To the only wise God our savior, BE glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and forever more. Eternity without judgment there is no sin unless you perceive it to be so.

This is the last piece of the jigsaw puzzle that we need, so that humans can be kind and cease to judge each other. I have always felt that Judgement Day, is the day that we all stop judging others, and I feel that this revelation has far reaching implications, impacting on both self empowerment and peace on earth.

GOD said EGO means Expressing God,s Omnipotence so what he is saying, is that EGO expresses his power. He said we are only now becoming human kind because judgement has stood between us and GOD. The beginning of a paradigm shift is thought of as nonsense at first, until it lights up the whole universe. Omnipotent human beings, being kind to each other is only right!

Archangel Michael said your minds, bodies and souls have been polluted because humanity has transgressed cosmic law and it is time for atonement, to reconcile with GOD and achieve redemption by surrendering your judgements so that you can accept the next stage of Ascension into your lives, it is your birthright ~ creating peace and paradise on earth.

Sacredstar©2003 www.angelshealing.com

 

[earl]

Can't say I've been particularly steeped in any discipline either. I simply have my own experiences, and have never found a "pidgeon-hole" to snugly fit my personal belief system.

As for the arguments you present - perhaps there is also the notion of miscommunication occuring. Sometimes the use of words applied by specific groups are extremely specific in their meaning - whereas a common usage may have a far broader representation. For example, to many Christians the term "God" applies to a Creator who is manifest as three aspects, one of which is incarnate in human form as "Jesus Christ". Obviously, non-Christian use of the term "God" will usually differ from this.

I've noticed you have your own distinctive use of terms of reference - the witness adn the dream - this is not something that immediately speaks to myself, though as the sentence I highlighted did then I presume the issue is one of language itself, eather than the actual semantics.

As I like to think that many of us share the same fundamental ideas, simply experssed with different words, then where I find disagreement with others my first instinct is to check to see whether it is a miscommunication with regards to the specific words involved.

This is especially necessary as I tend to be flagrantly broad in my application of terms, which can be very confusing for those with a more specific definition.

In this instance, I am referencing "ego" more from the pschoanalytical* angle, rather than a specific Eastern prespective (which I freely admit I have done precious little reading about).

* No doubt I will be drawn to an error of application by the Jungians!!

There often seems to be confusion both about the terms-ego and "self" in the variety of religious traditions and their "naturalness/healthiness." From the psychoanalytical psychological perspective, all ego functioning is is the ability to contain, direct, discriminate, etc. impulses, thoughts, perceptions and absence of that ability not only would wreak mental havoc, but prevent the ability to grow spiritually. No matter how you cut it, there is a "presence/witnessing" function within that around which "self-identifications" are built. The "self identities" are the culprits that interfere with fuller spiritual functioning and daily life, in general. In fact, when you get right down to it, it seems that the actual mystical core of spiritual practices within all religions-Christian mysticism, Buddhism, Sufism, etc.-are all various approaches to stripping away the "self definitions." In fact, given that as long as there is "self," there tends to be "other," in terms of our perceptual definitions and reactions, it is perhaps best to think in terms of an "apophatic mysticism," in general whereby we maintain an open mind/heart for the fullest appreciation and embodiment of the divine, stripping away all definitional expectations regarding self or Other. Take care, Earl

 

[Postmaster]

From my Christian point of view the ego pretty much exists, it's what we do with it that counts. From my point of view we all have a fundamental sovereign identity but it's our god given reasoning that we use to direct it. The Ego is as real as the chair your sitting on Ego simply means me or myself in Greek, I use the word everyday.

There often seems to be confusion both about the terms-ego and "self"

The term ego and self are the exactly the same thing.

self: your consciousness of your own identity
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

Religions or people that don't believe in the ego are from my perspective taking an easy way out of life. That's probably way they are sent straight back to earth

 

[earl]

From my Christian point of view the ego pretty much exists, it's what we do with it that counts. From my point of view we all have a fundamental sovereign identity but it's our god given reasoning that we use to direct it. The Ego is as real as the chair your sitting on Ego simply means me or myself in Greek, I use the word everyday.

The term ego and self are the exactly the same thing.

Religions or people that don't believe in the ego are from my perspective taking an easy way out of life. That's probably way they are sent straight back to earth

Actually, there are important, though subtle distinctions between ego and self at least in psychodynamic literature as relates to the various theoretical schools: ego psychology, self psychology, object relations psychology, etc. As I said earlier, "ego" is a form of psychological functioning which in normal development could and should develop and "self" is comprised of various and changing views of what "I" and "Other" means, though development of "self-other" images is also probably normative; what varies from person to person and perhaps culture to culture is both how that dichotomy gets defined and how rigidly it is held. "I" fully agree with you that "you" and "I" exist in this moment, but Buddhism, for instance, asks us to examine who we think we are: am I this feeling, thought, perception, relationship, social role of the moment? When all passes away, "who" and "what" remains? I suggest that all mystical paths essentially ask this question.

As to whether "all paths lead to the same mountain top," don't know, but here are excerpts from Jorge Ferrer's (a leading transpersonal theorist teaching at California Institute of Integral Studies), article entitled, "An Ocean with Many Shores:"

"In sum, the common ocean to which most spiritual tradtions lead may not be a pre-given spiritual ultimate, but the Ocean of Emancipation, a radical overcoming of self-centeredness which can be accompanied by a variety of transcendental disclosures of reality. Some of these disclosures have been enacted already by the world's spiritual traditions, while an indeterminate number have not yet come into being and will require a more creative participation, a co-creation with the divine, to come into being....In such a participatory cosmos, human intentional participation creatively channels and mosulates the self-disclosing of spirit through the bringing forth of visionary worlds and spiritual realities. Spiritual inquiry then becomes a journey beyond any pre-given goal, an endless exploration and disclosure of the inexhaustable possibilities of an always dynamic and indeterminate Mystery."

Have a good one, Earl

 

[Postmaster]

Very interesting stuff, very intellectual

 

[earl]

Yikes, if it came across primarily "intellectual," than I truly apologize and, instead should have quoted the recently deceased Korean Zen master, Seung Sahn, who in good Zen fashion entitled one of his books regarding Zen, (and attempts to describe "what it's all about"), "open mouth, already a big mistake." I wonder what a cyber forum created by a buncha of enlightened zen masters would to share their insights would look like:

Cyber name: ?
Message: ()

Have a good one, Earl

 

[Ron Price]

Discussion of the ego is a process of entering a labyrinth of ideas. As a person who writes extensively I have found Orwell's comment useful. George Orwell saw four reasons for writing: sheer egotism, aesthetic enthusiasm, historical impulse and political purpose.-Robert L. Savage et al, The Orwellian Moment: Hindsight and Foresight In the Post-1984 World, The University of Arkansas Press, London, 1989, pp.1-2.
It’s not so much the lie I want to expose, which was Orwell's motivation at least in part, but to define the kind of world I see and want to see in all its beauty and historicity. Where does ego come in here? I would like to wed my energy, my art, to my hermeneutics and sincerity. Where does ego come in here? This evil time which was Orwell's concern is not the same for me: the darkness is more obscure now, it seems to me,a million myths and truths hidden behind a thousand veils, in search of a context, a perspective, a structure of freedom for our Age. Whre does ego come in here?

There needs to be a profound change in the standard of public discussion with a judicious exercise, an etiquette of expression that avoids blight and causes the blossoms and flowers to bloom with sensitive to human tenderness. Ego is a critical problem much more than eco-ology, ego-ology. I shall say no more on this long and complex subject.-Ron Price, Tasmania.