I really don't understand what it means to transcend the ego or self. Every time someone says the ego is giving false beliefs- what else do we have to think with but the ego?
When I breathe into my Inner Self I hear guidance that my individuality and personality are important... yet it seems many think I should rise to higher vibrations and lose these?

Hi Justine

From my point of view, the ego is an intellect construction.  It filters our reality to create illusions (mostly it hides fears ).  

The ego want and desire things (or idea, or identification, or belief) to fill itself... otherwise fears would be shown.  More people are trap and identified with theses idea and beliefs, more it builds their ego. That why generally, people think they are their ego.  They don't want to see behind it, because there is fears and unkown.

Having no ego don't means you become nobody, you just become who you truly are, not just an idea of who you are.  You become the true manifestation of the own individuality of your being.


Hope it helps!

Hm, I definitely find your words inspiring. However, the way you describe ego makes it hard to see how it is not a person, since a person does filter reality, have ideas, beliefs, etc. If the ego is a 'construction of the intellect", then the ego actually creates the ego right?
I'm also interested in what you meant when you said the ego hides fears.

I don't believe that ego exists in the way people sometimes believe.

We incarnate into a body that has as a part of its programming, a self-defense instinct.  Animals use this instinct to do things like bark at each other, while people use their intellect to create personality aspects that are partly based upon how much they are influenced by their self-defense instinct rather than their higher self.

If one wants to get free of negative personality aspects, one needs to work on overcoming these aspects, rather than waiting for one's so called ego to mysteriously vaporize away some day.

I figure our self-defense instinct stays behind with our body when we return to the spirit World. However, our negative personality aspects will still need to be dealt with.

Today I've been wondering why I think I have a self. If I don't have one, there is nothing I really need to transcend, is there?

It all seems so complicated until I forget about myself.

love, b



JustineS wrote on Nov 20^th, 2008 at 12:47am:

I really don't understand what it means to transcend the ego or self. Every time someone says the ego is giving false beliefs- what else do we have to think with but the ego? When I breathe into my Inner Self I hear guidance that my individuality and personality are important... yet it seems many think I should rise to higher vibrations and lose these?

Hi Justine, I think transcending the ego means thinking "other" is yourself, therefore it's a oneness concept.
therefore a person who has transcended ego does not hold grudges when interacting with it's other "selves."

self defensiveness is the spinning of the 1st 3 chakras around issues of survival, self empowerment (at expense of another) and procreation, sexual issues.

the active fourth chakra, the heart chakra when open is the process of ego transcendence, as there is nothing to defend, if all are seen as one with yourself.
That open heart however, does not mean you have to allow bad mannered folks walk on you. It does not mean you cannot voice objections and say ouch when it hurts.
that is the only way ego can interact is by asserting themselves. while it may seem we are not all mother theresa, we are truly mirrors of one another in our oneness.
You always get back what you dish out.
If the intention is loving communication, it is the active heart speaking. we are all destined for transcendence of the self serving ego.

we just get bogged down in who's telling the truth? We all are, but we need a common truth.

Transcendence of ego is to see yourself as no different than another, in that we are all one. When we don't need to express anything but love, we are above the ego's domain which seeks power or recognition on it's own terms. Transcendence means taking responsibility you brought everything down on yourself. nobody did it to you. You pulled it in. You forgive yourself, not the other.

You can not get rid of ego. You can only forgive it and ask to do better next time. We must ask help in forgiving the ego. Then the way is shown. Forgiveness is choosing love but not submitting to fear.

The ego says we are not safe here. The HS says we are safe. In simply forgiving. There are two voices in our head. The ego speaks first always. HS is quieter but more powerful. HS is the voice for love.

thanks for explaining, this made things a lot clearer to me  :)

 Like Albert, I believe the "ego" is a somewhat misunderstood concept and partly a biological construct.  

 But the latter explanation leaves us with more questions, similar to the chicken and egg question.  What came first, separative and fearful thoughts and patterns or the physical which seems to have an general effect of amplifying those limiting beliefs and feelings to the nth degree?

 I believe there is way too much emphasis on ego in too much spiritual literature and teachings out there, also the emphasis tends to be too negative and polarized.  

  I'm finding that the more i focus on living love, compassion, and thinking about Source and the former eternal truths, the more it helps to weaken and break up those limiting aspects of myself which others might label "ego".  

 This doesn't mean that I'm unaware of what needs to be worked on, or try ignore or repress anything, but rather the focus is on what's positive.  

 Like attracts and begets like, focus on the positive, and it strengthens the positive, and same conversely with the negative.  If anything, the more i focus on and grow in love, the more i consciously become aware of what's limiting me, but its different than thinking of and focusing on some kind of generalized ego monster.  

 These limiting patterns while they are generally related to fear and separative tendencies, also are more specific and have to do with karmic patterns from other lives and also repressed childhood issues, etc.    Hence these are specific patterns that tie into a greater self, which need to be unraveled or i.e. the wheat needs to be separated from the chaff.  

 To try to fight a generalized ego monster, and keeping that in the mind, will tend to strengthen those very attributes/tendencies/aspects you want to lose.  

 Love is what is real, and is what deserves much more focus and attention.  

 Also Justine, my understanding is that individuality and ego are two different concepts.  

 Individuality i believe is Source given, and the latter we manifested and must eventually lose to know full and complete happiness.

 There is nothing wrong with having a sense of self--tis a beautiful thing, but when that sense of self gets so bloated, self aggrandizing, and hurtful to others (or the little self), and loses the sense of collective self/Oneness...well that's where suffering begins for the little self and its now limited awareness/existence.  

 To be free, is to know real individuality, balanced and merged with a full awareness of The Oneness at the same time.   And the meaning, teh concept, the truth of it IS so simple.  When you feel, think, and do good for others, it makes you feel better.  

 A child teaches that when it hands to another child, its beloved piece of cake, and expects nothing in return, but is warmed by the smile of delight on the other childs face.  This is how Source gives to us, and to know Source fully, you have to be like Source for again like attracts and begets like always. and forever in this Universe.   But you will still be you, just a more refined, creative, aware, and joyful kind of you.  Isn't that a wonderful gift from Source to us?

Justine wrote:   "Also Justine, my understanding is that individuality and ego are two different concepts. Individuality i believe is Source given, and the latter we manifested and must eventually lose to know full and complete happiness."

Albert responds: I like all or most of what Justin wrote, but the above stood out to me.

Hunh, I followed till the very end. The majority of your post sounded like you do not believe we lose individuality, more like enhance it by expanding outward and taking in the needs of many others other than ourselves. But then you said we eventually need to lose individuality....
Ugh, I just feel stupid.

JustineS:

You're not stupid, it's just that there are a lot of opinions out there and some are more well founded than others. A person is bound to get confused.

What feels best to you? We go through all the learning experiences we go through and learn to live according to love so our existence can be snuffed completely out of existence, or we find a way where many of us can live according to happiness, peace, love and oneness for all of eternity? You've probably noticed that you and your lover feel like one at times.


JustineS wrote on Nov 24^th, 2008 at 5:37pm:

Hunh, I followed till the very end. The majority of your post sounded like you do not believe we lose individuality, more like enhance it by expanding outward and taking in the needs of many others other than ourselves. But then you said we eventually need to lose individuality.... Ugh, I just feel stupid.

Oh yes, we certainly feel like one at times! Lol, I have been told we need to become less codependent!
If anyone has read The Road Less Traveled, Scott Peck has an interesting take on spiritual growth. He says that the ego boundary need to be snapped firmly into place before it can be transcended- sort of a movement back and forth across that ego line.
Sort of like when I compliment my lover and I can feel her happiness. It's like I move across to her boundary then back to my own.
Anais Nin says relationships are at least as much about you as they are about the other person. We crave opening ourselves to become known and appreciated by others.
I personally feel unconditional love leads to a feeling of quiet and wholeness, while expressions of individuality are more likely to lead to thrilling experiences, like the thrill that rises when you notice someone looking at you from across the room....

JustineS wrote on Nov 24^th, 2008 at 5:37pm:

Hunh, I followed till the very end. The majority of your post sounded like you do not believe we lose individuality, more like enhance it by expanding outward and taking in the needs of many others other than ourselves. But then you said we eventually need to lose individuality.... Ugh, I just feel stupid.

 Hi Justine, i'm assuming you are responding to my longish post?   You're right in the first part, i'm saying that we keep an individuality...some kind of sense of a "different self".  

  I wrote, "Also Justine, my understanding is that individuality and ego are two different concepts. Individuality i believe is Source given, and the latter we manifested and must eventually lose to know full and complete happiness."

 I made some punctuation/grammatical mistakes.  I probably should have put a semi colon in between "concepts" and "Individuality" and dropped the period.  Then it probably would have made more sense.   When I said "latter", i meant in the last sentence talking about "ego".  

 Hope that clears stuff up for you.  

Justin said:  Also Justine, my understanding is that individuality and ego are two different concepts
_____

I agree this makes much sense Justin, well said. it is easy to get the idea within some literature that we must rid ourselves of ego, after spending much of life simply making an ego from childhood on up.
getting rid of ego is contrary to the forgiving ourselves for possessing ego. if the ego is considered a fear-based thought system, we can see how forgiving ourselves would introduce a preparatory stage to be able to feel love, instead of fear. as fear and love are not compatible in the same head space.

the chicken or egg idea, the way I see it, what was created was created by a creator. so did god lay eggs here?  :D

perhaps! what I meant to say before I distracted myself is Bruce's curiosity story explains the separation story rather well, at least as a beginning point, why we find ourselves seemingly separated from our creator, Love.  a desirable item, even if many of us do not see God as Love.
Monroe says much the same. We scouted, we saw, we wanted to be here and had curiosity and desire. we became forgetful once diving in, and now we all start to remember who we really are and that we are not these small, forgotten, bereaved creatures far from home, but rather we are endowed with creative abilities we have forgotten.
we are becoming what we already are.

love, alysia

Another factor to consider is that if a person has too big of a belief in the ego factor, the ego will end up becoming a scapegoat. As opposed to dealing with the specific issues that cause a person to manifest in an undesirable ways, a person will say, "that's just my ego," and leave it at that. Labelling what limits us and shaping it into a paradigm ("theoretical" framework), doesn't lead to freedom.

recoverer wrote on Nov 26^th, 2008 at 6:04pm:

Another factor to consider is that if a person has too big of a belief in the ego factor, the ego will end up becoming a scapegoat. As opposed to dealing with the specific issues that cause a person to manifest in an undesirable ways, a person will say, "that's just my ego," and leave it at that. Labelling what limits us and shaping it into a paradigm ("theoretical" framework), doesn't lead to freedom.

scapegoating the ego is lazy I admit. If attaining freedom means getting rid of guilt, the only way to get rid of guilt is by returning to innocense by a paradigm which works by testing it out through experience.
the practice of theory must supercede the actual experience, which is self realization.
what is theory to one, is reality to another. the problem in communication within our society is the inability to share an emotion, unless you can sing good!

blogging can only go so far.... ;)

This is a really great thread with a lot of interesting ideas, I think.  One of the things that really bothered me when I started studying spirituality was the idea that merging with the source means that I would BECOME the source, become the only thing there is, and have no one/nothing to interact with.  The idea gave me panic attacks!  

I like the way that Deepak Chopra put it once, though - to think of yourself as a cell in the body.  For some reason that made a lot of sense to me, because the good of the cell and the good of tthe body are completely entwined, separate but one, yes?  

Also, I've read a pretty amusing article once that said it is impossible to destroy the ego, simply because the desire to destroy the ego comes from an aspect of the ego itself!  "Ego vs. Ego - Ego wins!"  ;D and oh, oops, it's still there! ;)

Haha, you introduced a nice twist Starry!

that reminds me Starry, this friend of mine put it the same way, only he used desire as the idea, instead of the entire ego.

In some eastern schools, the idea was to red oneself of desire. yet that cannot be done either. for first you'd have a desire.
a desire to be without a desire.
therefore you would be chasing your tail.

same with the ego of chasing after the state of enlightenment and to claim to be unattached to anything.

we're in a body therefore we're attached to it. a better way to understand these things is to be unattached emotionally to the outcome of any situation and look at that as equanimity.

equanimity is to be in the world, but not of it, or to derive the best of two worlds. Here, and also there.

in a way, what I'm saying is, don't worry. because worry never accomplished the thing desired anyway. It either turned out good, or it turned out bad, and all the worrying done didn't make it turn out good (if it turned out good) what I then do, if things work out good, I wonder why I worried about in the first place?

so worry is a waste of time. I find I'm still quite capable of inventing problems that simply aren't there, lending energy to them and then finding out later I made it all up in my head. there was no problem.
this happens enough times, and equanity in the emotions takes place over time. the way I figure everything works out good in the end.
It was easier to explain as faith.

nobody wants to hear that word anymore. too simplified.

nice image Starry. welcome.

Sounds like that good old "Grazing Posture" again, Alysia!

In Tom Campbell's MBT philosophy, though, we should be raising (evolving) the quality of our consciousness (lowering its entropy) by reacting with our free will to all the choices put before us in this physical matter virtual reality. Feedback received tells us if we're going in the right direction. Grazing through life might not be the best system in that scenario. My instinct has always been to keep my head down ("passive alertness", as Bets aptly put it once), but maybe I'd be better to get out there and start mixing it!!

Alfred

Stary:

I agree with what you wrote. I used to believe in the one self viewpoint, which is a real bummer if you think about it, but found that many many selves make up the oneness. Lots of fun and love for everybody for all of eternity.

The more we let go of our limitations so we can live according to love,  the more we can become aware of how connected we are.

Hi Alfred, I guess you'll have to explain what grazing philosophy is, because all I get is an image of a cow in the pasture.

I'm sure that's not what you meant? :D

Hi Recoverer, what do you mean by the one self theory? Why is it a bummer? Are you referring to each of us having multiple selves?
just wondering ;)

Justine:

Some people have the belief that there is just one self, and the rest of us are nothing but a bunch of illusions. Some people and many spirits believe that there are many souls that do in fact exist and are parts of the oneness.  I used to believe that there is just one self all by itself. That changed after I really considered the matter and started to communicate with spirits and see what they have to say. These spirits have proven to be much more trustworthy than gurus that speak of just one self.



JustineS wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2008 at 2:51am:

Hi Recoverer, what do you mean by the one self theory? Why is it a bummer? Are you referring to each of us having multiple selves? just wondering ;)

Here's a really great explanation video about the ego from Deepak's blog, if anyone is interested:

http://www.intentblog.com/archives/2008/11/tools_of_person.html