We seem to have three complementary definitions arising out of this. We have the dynamic aspect from Alyssia - karma yoga - smash up the old ego imagery and free yourself from its constraints, just like kids growing up through levels of things that they don't need - enlightenment through action without contingency. 

Then we have the "rational" approach, in which Genden Drub Rinpoche, and his asorted acquaintances, simply redirect their consciousnesses toward the reality revealed by meditation, and cease to introspect upon the possibility of internal soap operas - jnana yoga - enlightenment through awareness.

And then we have the holistic and structural aspect, in which the collective slowly fuses into a unity because this is its ultimate nature. We learn love - PUL - because nothing else works, and thus we return to our initial state of oneness, at one with all that exists. - bhakta yoga - also known as the thermodynamic tendency for equilibrium, as mediated by karma.

While I can imagine the sound of numerous ancient Hindu Rishis spinning in their various crypts at the idea, I'd say that we've pretty well covered the topic. - Actually, I suppose that, since the Rishis were all incinerated in the burning ghats along the Ganges, the sound would be more like a whirlwind - Reminds me of my wife's gentle snoring - another sound of abandonment of ego.

d

I think indeed that we've managed a fairly comprehensive description of enlightenment. Interestingly enough by means much like what I've been describing on the ACIM thread - by circling or describing the multiple aspects of a complex phenomenon that's not amenable to direct explanation by language.

To your summary Dave (I had to Google some of the terminology as I've not got a clue about some of the Vedic (?) or at least Hindu words) you could also say that it's the classic Buddhist Hinayana (rules for wise and compassionate living in this world), Mahayana (emptiness of both our personal and external reality, and the underlying reality of love and compassion or of basic goodness) and Vajrayana (you can achieve this view rapidly at some risk in this very life by dedicated use of certain spiritual practices) views applied to the issue of realisation.

Buddhism builds so much from the older Hindu perspectives anyway.

One caution for those reading Alysia on the term 'surrendering ego'. The 'surrender' word implying as it does a letting a go, a dropping of the fight to retain ego in the face of a higher intuition is really important.

As you know it's widely taught that somehow applying willpower or other aggressive means to subdue the ego does not work. Because the ego can't decide to do away with itself, energy put into that is perverted and actually strengthens it.

The process is more one of calming the ego through meditation, clean living and the like so that the mental static is reduced to the point where the higher intuition can come through.

This can be sudden or gradual as we said - Eckhardt Tolle as you've found in 'The Power of the Now' describes his own enlightenment experience in classic 'sudden' terms. Somehow having fought like crazy to shore up the belief system and caused huge pain and suffering to the individual it all becomes too much and the ego is suddenly 'surrendered'.

He like Bernadette Roberts went off line in the aftermath - she headed for the wilds while he wandered city streets for months in a blissful daze as he 'got it together again' from his new view. Like her he too turned to Buddhist teaching to explain what happened to him and make sense of his situation.

Happy holiday all - we don't celebrate Thanksgiving over here.....

Alysia sure has a way of hitting the nail on the head Dave all right. There's times I've an ache in my finger from typing half a page and she hits it in one.

I'd not at all realised just how closely Buddhism parallels Hinduism - perhaps because the representations I'd seen of the latter always seemed to be riddled with myths and Gods that looked very different. But you've at various times really pointed up for me the similarities, so thank you. It's great to get the right words because that way I can head for Google/Wikipedia and the like.

I've been surprised too at how reticent Buddhism is about Hinduism - it's actually pretty open about others. Do you have any idea why this might be (competition?), or what the big differences in emphasis might be?

My personal experience tends to support what you say about Vajrayana. I'm not a student or anything as you know, but seem somehow to have independently found my way in the past year or two into forms of open meditation and some states very like those that seem (from a distance) to be taught on that path. They really seem to have put the hurry up on my emotional opening if nothing else.

I've still not decided whether or not to head down that road. I struggle with the institutionality of it all and the vows it entails, but on the other hand I really would love to get access to a qualified teacher and the teachings. Trouble is the relationship seems to be so arms length as available via Shambhala, and to entail so much formality and ritual...

There's some remarkable people on this site. And we probably only see the half of it, there's nothing that says that the spiritually gifted write reams of bumph the way we do...

Hi Bets,

A lot has been said about ego, but I’ll add my 2 cents, too.  

I think when we are born we are still very connected to great spiritual wisdom and power through our inner core being.  This connection makes us feel very safe and secure.  As we grow and become more accustomed to the physical world the connection to our inner spiritual wisdom begins to fade and is replaced by parental voices that are intended to protect us and keep us safe.  We are taught right and wrong, good and bad, how to behave or not behave, and how to react in various situations and so on.  In the child’s psyche he or she tries to replace the innate spiritual wisdom with a functioning ego, but because of the internalized parental voices that speak of danger, fear is developed.  In particular, the fears of powerlessness and rejection.  The child is never really able to right his or her self and the mask self is produced instead.

The creation of the mask self is the child’s way of trying to feel safe, secure, loved and accepted.  The whole purpose of the mask is our attempt to feel safe in a world we are afraid will reject us.  The mask self strives for the connection the child once had with its inner being by trying to connect with others, but a deep connection cannot be accomplished because the mask self denies fear and negative feelings.  Try as we might, the mask can never give us the feeling of internal safety we strive for, instead it produces the internal feeling of being an imposter because we are trying to be ‘good’ all of the time and we are not ‘good’ all of the time.

A repeating pattern develops and builds as the mask self continually tries to prove it is good according to the internalized parental voices, which ends up producing more fear and more feelings of fakery because we can’t keep up the front all of the time.  The intention of the mask is of both pretense and denial in its attempt to protect us from a world we believe is hostile by trying to prove that we are the good ones.  It denies that its purpose is to cover up negative feelings because it denies that pain and anger exist within the personality.  The mask does this by not taking responsibility for any thoughts, words or deeds that are negative, primarily by blaming someone or something else.  It’s their fault means that it must be the other person who is in pain or has anger.

The only way to maintain this masquerade is to always be trying to prove that we are good, but inside we resent this constant pressure that we place on ourselves to be good all of the time by trying to prove that we are right and they are wrong.  We resent having to live by someone else’s rules because it truly is a lot of work.  We get tired, angry and eventually we don’t care anymore so we blurt out angry words, make negative complaints and accusations and we end up hurting people.  When we do this we are no longer acting out from our mask, we are acting out from our lower self.  Dumping our negativity on someone else feels good.  It feels like a relief and the lower self enjoys this negative pleasure because it, unlike the mask self, does not deny its negativity.

The lower self is truthful and honest about its negative intent.  It doesn’t pretend to be nice.  It puts its self first and enjoys negative pleasure.  It knows about the pain held in the personality and has no intention of feeling the pain so it covers it up by maintaining separation from whatever is in the psyche causing the pain by doing whatever it chooses to do.  The higher self on the other hand is the part of us that is still connected to the spiritual wisdom through our inner core being.  Wherever we have love, joy and peace in our life, this is where our higher self is expressing itself and the goodness that is from within.  The intention of the higher self is for truth, respect, clear self-awareness, communion and harmony with God, others, nature and ourselves.

What is important here is intention or the underlying intent behind the thoughts, words or deeds that go forth from us as we express ourselves in the world.  What is so confusing about our interactions with each other is that any of our interactions can come from the mask, lower or higher self, depending on the underlying intent.  For example, the words we speak might say one thing while the underlying intent changes the meaning.  The higher self says we are friends and means we are friends without any conditions placed on that friendship.  The mask says, we are friends, but only as long as I’m the good one and you never challenge my goodness.  The lower self says we are friends only to the degree I allow, but after that watch out because I will use you to get what I want and if you try to stop me from getting what I want I’ll get rid of you.  Getting rid of can mean anything from not talking to the person, overpowering them in a debate or argument, or actually physically getting rid of them.

On another thread I said that I feel the ego has gotten a bad wrap over the past several years.  The reason I say this is because the ego is not the mask we wear, it’s not the lower self or higher self.  The developing ego is simply conscious awareness of self, which takes in all parts of our psyche or the individual becoming aware of self creates and develops ego throughout their life experience and beyond.  Somehow and especially in new age thought the ego seems to have become a ‘bad’ word or a ‘bad’ thing to have and somehow we must get rid of it, which of course is impossible.  At best we can strive to surrender the separated parts of the ego to God.  Or as Alysia says… take the trash out.  I like that, too!  

Love, Kathy  

Hi Bets, and all participants,

Just adding to the above   :

According to my sketchy and provisional understanding of evolution, it was probably true that at one time the acquisition of the 'ego' actually represented an advanced attribute, one that was commensurate with the necessities of the environment the soul had involved itself into. That 'environment' is still here but with some additional energies now and always newly manifesting as well.

In the animal world, 'getting for me', (or in the more advanced animal/human world, getting for 'me and mine'), the ego of separation is a useful operator not only to survive with, but to prosper with as well. In most of the animal and human world as commonly defined, if you don't use it, you would be a loser, or not long for this world to say the least.

Just like with animals that even go so far as to utilize cooperative social structures,  it usually involves some kind of hierarchy, with some separated 'ego' principle/being positioned on top as the dominant individual, like with higher mammals. In the human world which evolved out of these animal tendencies these hierarchical models and structures are still a very strong tendency since they have been so sucessfully reiterated and adapted as a form. The animal is still very much present in much of human life despite outer appearance - Sri Aurobindo said that many humans are simply 'mentalized' animals and it doesn't take a big stretch to see that this true. Hopefully this is changing fast although sometimes one may wonder....

The ego (or personality in my 'system') as 'boss' of the hierarchy of the individual being has been well developed on a personal basis as the directing agent of differentiated human lives. And, the success of this individual use has been interpreted and adapted into collective uses within human institutions.

You see these hierarchical structures in government, corporate, family and religious structure - everywhere. Only now, as a social model and paradigm it is stretched to its limits more and more as an operating principle - for one thing because a critical number of individuals' needs now supercede this form in terms of what it can provide. It requires a certain amount of sacrifice in submission to the model (a vertically integrated hierarchy) which represents numerous restrictions that may no longer outweigh the benefits of that submission, making them negative in affect. Socially for instance - that those in the higher levels of some hierarchy deserve and get more access to resources, to opportunity, etc.  The domination of the ego can precipitate in other interpersonal and group problems such as conflict, aggression, manipulation for various gains, mostly having to do with establishment of division, separation and supremacy, etc.    

As more advanced people seek a more decentralized (new energy coming in) approach to spirituality, one still sees the attempted imposition (and the persistent imposition) of this old form, to address newly present energetics, which must evolve new forms. This is why we are in a crisis. New energy. Old forms. New energy not happy in old forms. New energy needs new forms.

It is hard to let go. It is hard to even see that letting go is necessary, because we have a highly conditioned view that these old forms are something that worked so very well  - and they did, at one time. They are an earthly representation or interpretation of inner realities related to energy, and how that energy is generally layered in ascending levels, yet we seem to be moving towards an awareness that the way we have been looking at this reality is not the only way.

Because we are holding on so tightly to the old - this does not allow the new to enter. The new energy is entering - we have called for it - collectively, and as individuals, and that call has been answered, it is being answered, but it is up to us to adapt it to new forms. That is the charge of human life on earth. To use the earthly form as a vehicle for this energy that we have asked for. This is everyones individual right, responsibility, or privilege. It could also be described as a blessing.

What is the new?  One thing I can see is that the new is represented by an increasingly available decentalization allowing more and more individually differentiated beings to be able to access their own inner highest divinity -.instead of deferring this activity or process to other representatives in a hierarchy on their behalf. The old model involved the soul or individual highest principle remaining relatively quiescent, while ego/personality ruled - the function of the soul was then represented externally by other beings or symbols.

Now, more and more people sense and know that they can have direct access to this process, this source within. Of course this potential  is and was always present, but the actualization of it was considered an abberation, an abnormality - or to remove the negative connotation - it was (and still is) very rare. Most people could not imagine this possibility of ascent (vs Descent) as available in any being, let alone in themselves. How many people (in the West, anyway) heard of God realization before the year 1900? But they could submit before a 'superior', or defer to an intermediary. Now everyone can be the leader of their own 'religion', or perhaps better, their own spiritual path - using whatever form they wish, and guided by their own highest source available - and hopefully they are going to choose in the 'right' direction.

That was and is eternally the teaching of revered Teachers: Krishna, Buddha, Jesus, Ramakrishna, Aurobindo (please excuse omissions - these are some I know of in traditions I have applied myself to learn) and I am sure there are others - They all come at different times, take different forms and operate in different ways because the specific needs and requirements are different. Like Krishna said to Arjuna in the Gita: "I body Myself forth from age to age..."

The individual human being had to integrate the ego at a high level of function in order to differentiate from the mass of life embodied in lower forms, like mineral, plant, animal, and human too - while increasing the trend towards greater individual self-consciousness. It was necessary to have a differentiated personality, to achieve identity apart from the mass, pack, herd, the community - even as a 'leader' of such aggregated forms. But what to do when that role is relatively complete, when the ego/personality is established firmly and consistently as the main organizing principle in the socially differentialted being? This is where many are now.

This is why so many so-called new age people seem to lack material ambition, as well as many of the prized attributes that dominate our society - why they no longer fit into structures which assume an ultimate ego supremacy within a hierarchy - including the ego supremacy within the individuated person. As people become more interested in contacting and merging with their own soul (which is intrinsically unified with others') the ego now has to submit, or rather surrender to another paradigm, but it will not be fun if it is resisting, dragged kicking and screaming to this new form of guidance in which it is no longer 'the boss', but can still and must be an able functionary.

The choices seem overwhelmingly in only a few main directions:
1) to hold to or revert to the known paradigm - well used, well worn, with all the attendant (and now increasing) detrimental effects. Ego supremacy in individual and group life. Objective reasoning as a predominant instrument of ego domination. The supremacy of the 'personality'  - the soul/God principle relatively quiescent or subservient to ego. "Personal effort and achievement is predominant in a world view of 'limited physical resources'

2) drift indeterminately back and forth between # 1 and #3, not resolutely embracing the new, not letting go of the old - in a tentative oscillation leading to a still point of seeming confusion between one and the other as they each become more defined and conflicted.

3) the resolute conscious seeking for the highest within each being, with the 'ego' or personality surrendering and contributing to an individual and subjective merging with the higher soul reality, which inherently includes and supports the same search in others - even in animals and plants. Personal effort is necessarily reciprocal with, and surrendered to a divine Grace, which has the capacity to support all in sufficent measure and diversity.  

Here, the peace of knowing/acknowledging a less stressful reality in non-physical does not seem to remove any Earthbound necessity, responsibility or opportunity to transform the physical reality by the sublimation of ego into higher available forms of use.

To add to Alysia's trash analogy, and she was going in this direction - I would like to look at it like the soul and the ego are shaking hands, and if any trash needs to be taken out, the ego will surrender to the needs of the soul and be its willing instrument.



- u

Taking both of the last two posts together, it appears that without development of ego we are unable to operate in this materially projected state. So we develop society and within society we develop self, and thus confront all the factors by which things don't seem to work. And from society we get Ten Commandments, the Eightfold Path, the criteria for the Ashtangha Yoga of Patanjali, and a few other roadsigns to direct us - all of them telling us roughly the same thing. So this gives us insight about how we can get along with other parts of our Cosmic Self, through which we can return to our starting point, and as Eddington put it, "know the place for the first time".

Seems to make some kind of sense - like practicing a speech until we get it right. Or practicing a game until we are integrated with the other players. In this sense, ego is merely a tool for advancement of ultimately valid living. I like the analogy of using a boat to cross a stream. The only problem is that upon reaching the opposite shore, so many people seem to have forgotten to get out of the boat.

d

I've found a way of looking at things that doesn't look at the ego issue in a conventional way. We started out as beings who are a combination of awareness and creative energy. Our creative ability provides us with the ability to create something we can be aware of, our awareness provides us with the ability to be aware of what we create.

The knowledge of how to make use of our creative energy doesn't come just like that. Each of us learns to be masters of our creative energy in our own unique way. One of the driving forces of our evolution is trying to find a way where we can be completely happy and secure with what our existence has become. Until we do so we get entangled in all sorts of limiting thought patterns. These thought patterns are often contradictory to each other, and operate according to their own little worlds of thinking. Thought patterns that are highly self serving, get categorized as being egotistical.

Limiting thought patterns cause our being to be narrowed down according to their nature. The more our being gets narrowed down, the slower we vibrate. The more we let go of limiting thought patterns, the more we recapture our being, the faster we vibrate, and the more we connect with other beings who also vibrate at fast rates and live according to love an oneness. A oneness they re-discovered after they completed their growth process.

Therefore, rather than thinking in terms of an "ego" entity that has to be overcome, I think in terms of letting go of limited ways of being.  For example, while I am at work, either I can buy into a thought pattern that tells me that I couldn't possibly be happy now because I'm at work, or I could get in the habit of not picking up such a thought pattern and allow myself to be happy no mattter what activity I'm involved with.  

I believe there is a part of our minds that is independent of our thought patterns. The more we find that we don't have to buy into any particular thought pattern, the more free we are to use this part of mind to chose ways of creation that are truly beneficial. Eventually we learn to create so the main thing we create is love.

P.S. What I wrote above, isn't limited to what we experience during this physical lifetime.

Greetings,

This has been a wonderful discussion !  You all have been very insightful !

Much gratitude, Bets