August 3, 2010
- Ego and Separateness -
I’ve been noticing something lately about the ego. Or whatever you want to call that thing with which we identify with which we probably shouldn’t be identifying with quite so much.
There is a sense that the ego tells me: “I am complete”. Or perhaps, “I have a complete understanding of things”.
The ego is usually described as a separate self and I am not disputing this. I think the two concepts might be describing the same thing, though I am not nearly far enough along the path to say for sure. But I do notice that there is an “ignoring” quality to the ego, or a tendency to ignore that leads to suffering, in any case. There is a sense that I have a complete understanding of what I am and what is going on in the present moment and so do can ignore it. I think this is a lie, but it happens so fast I don’t notice my own agreement with it.
Still, what is it that is being ignored?
Its not exactly clear to me yet, but I think there is a connection between the “separate self” and a sense of not needing to pay attention to some core process going on with us. Its the feeling that that process is done or doesn’t matter, whereas were we to turn toward that process, it would develop on its own and THAT would make us complete. Or reveal what was actually complete within us. Or something like that…
Like I said, this is vague stabbings in the dark toward what seems to be some kind of connection. But its certainly not clear yet, and there’s no guarantee this isn’t just something I’ve dreamt up. But it feels important, and I wanted to try to make sense of it… More to come, if there is indeed anything else to this.
That is, the feeling that the information you are giving your mind to work with, to come up with a solution based on, is complete, based on your previous understandings. This feeling is what is wrong.
Its almost as if the ego is thinking you know something which you don’t, and that this creates within the mind a sense of being apart from reality. Or vice versa….
Just thinking out loud here.
Perhaps one part of enlightenment is learning HOW to see the world right in front of you.
Comment by Ian — August 3, 2010 @ 3:42 pm
Of course, we never have a COMPLETE understanding of things. I don’t mean to imply that.
More that we have an understanding of where the spaces lie within things. We need to become familiar enough with opportunity and the unknown to recognize when we are confronted with it in every day life.
Seeing things as they are would also imply seeing the ways in which they change, since there is no circumstance in life that is NOT changing…
Comment by Ian — August 3, 2010 @ 3:45 pm
The identification of the self with a way-of-seeing… hmm. Something I think about from time to time.
Comment by speedbird — August 3, 2010 @ 4:08 pm
Yeah, kind of. Though there IS something real to be seen, I still think (though I admit this may change). Its just thinking that we’ve already seen it is the problem.
Thinking we’ve already seen it means we’re missing something that is going on RIGHT NOW. And so this maintains our sense of being separate from what’s going on RIGHT NOW, even though we’re not at all separate from it (cause we’re RIGHT HERE)…
Comment by Ian — August 3, 2010 @ 4:30 pm
I say you’re on the right track, Ian. There IS something real to be seen, but once you’ve seen it the sense of separateness begins to dissolve. I say “begins” because Ego remains even after you’ve identified the “core processes” going on in the background. The Ego will maintain its distinguished status, but your awareness of the Source will draw you to It, making the ego ever more transparent. The ego allows us to see how things are separate, but this other way of seeing allows us to know how we are all the same Whole.
In this way, I would let go of the word “completeness” in favor of something like “connectedness.” It is a better complement to “separateness” and might help in identifying whether it is your ego talking or some deeper sense.
Comment by Donn — August 4, 2010 @ 9:54 am
Ian,
I don’t think you really have much of an ego.
Comment by Ted — August 4, 2010 @ 10:49 am
Damn insightful Donn, thanks for the advice. I see why you would let go of completeness, but I think there’s an aspect of what I mean by “complete” that I haven’t been able to quite make sense of.
After reading back over this, I realize its a lot of babbling. Still, there is something at the heart of it (or at least, it came from something “real”). There’s some sense, though this might just be a personal thing for me, that the ego feels complete without that connectedness, that it feels the connectedness is not actually necessary. But it is necessary, and the ego cannot be complete until it is completely joined with what IS (which it already is, in any case). Yeah? :)
I don’t know, I feel I’ve buried this under too many words to dig it back out. I think I’ll leave it at that for now.
Comment by Ian — August 4, 2010 @ 10:57 am
Ted,
Yeah, me either. Not sure at all if this is beneficial or not. We need a sense of self, at least some sort of I AM HEREness, but we confuse the sense data we received from that as being somehow separate from the sense data we receive from reality. And that’s simply not true, since that self is always in direct communion with the reality around it.
So, in regards to having a small ego as in a small sense of I AM HEREness, that’s maybe not so good. Or maybe it is good, if that means it’s easier to re-align it with reality. And then growing as a person from there, once the stable platform of actually-being-where-I-am is in place.
But the sense of having no ego as in having nothing that considers itself somehow apart from what surrounds it, that I think, can only be a good thing.
Comment by Ian — August 4, 2010 @ 11:01 am
Ian, you’re hitting right on it! The ego thinks it is complete regardless of connectedness, though I’m not sure if it ever truly becomes complete even after joining. In terms of words, I think you’ve gotten about as far as they will take you. Time to apply your ass to the cushion and keep at it!
Comment by Donn — August 4, 2010 @ 11:19 am
Ian, here is another perspective on the ego I found helpful:
Ego development
I think We actually have a lot in common, Ian. I know I come across as more bombastic and dramatic and domineering than you, but its mostly because We only correspond online and that is how I am online.
In person, I am still fairly eccentric, but I am also kind of a people pleaser that kind of acts like a mirror to people around me. This was usefull when I was hitch hiking across the country, because everyone that picked me up saw themselves in me, and helped me out. But often I form relationships with people that violate my boundaries. I have been thinking recently that I need to develop my ego more.
In a way your ego is a work of art, and like human creations, its doesn’t endure forever, but I still think its necessary to build one, from a developmental perspective.
Comment by Ted — August 4, 2010 @ 11:21 am
The Hindus believed that people shouldn’t devote themselves seriously to studying spirituality until after age 35.
Rudolf Steiner believed that any Deep Spiritual insights before age 35 are from the influence of Lucifer.
I mention this because I think there is a developmental order to things.
Say for example I am arrested developmentally and never developed a strong enough ego. I mean think of babies that often have a wise look on their faces? Isn’t our origin divine? Obviously coming into this world requires development on our part that is aside from this divine origin.
Should a person with a not fully formed ego seek to transcend it in meeting some spiritual goal?
Comment by Ted — August 4, 2010 @ 11:29 am
Speaking of which, watch this space for new developments soon… :)
Comment by Ian — August 4, 2010 @ 11:47 am
@ Ted:
Supposedly Buddha left home at 30, and Jesus died at 33, so I’m taking all that with a grain of salt.
I’ve noticed there’s something about the late 20s and early 30s that seems to be a key time for spiritual investigation. I figure, the spirit moves me when it will. I don’t think we can say “no one should meditate ever until you’re at least 35!” seems too totalitarian to me….
Something to think about, definitely. But the ego doesn’t go away when it’s “transcended”, its always there. Its just in its proper place. The key is to be sincere, as the i ching says, “innocent”. The spirit works with you as you need it to, if you let it.
Comment by Ian — August 4, 2010 @ 11:53 am
>> Thinking we’ve already seen it …
I think that’s the thing right there. Or thereabouts.
Comment by speedbird — August 4, 2010 @ 5:27 pm
I posted a link about positive things about the ego and I think it ended up in the spam filter.
What I am referring to is the process of individuation, in terms of Jungian thought on the ego.
In regards to Hinduism or Vedanta Its not really a totalitarian thing its just a developmental type thing.
It kind of makes sense for most people to get established in ones career and to get married and have children earlier in life and then after the kids are grown and one is financially comfortable to devote oneself to Spiritual things.
In my personal experience, The ego is related to ones identity and the third chakra. I have had more than one intuitive healer tell me I need work in this area, that my third chakra is unbalanced. I feel like I have been a state of arrested development partly due to not having chosen a clear career path and mission in life.
Comment by Ted — August 4, 2010 @ 6:59 pm
Let me give you an example:
I was a precocious child, so I seemed older at a young age, but in many ways I haven’t progressed.
I have been day dreaming about being an artist/writer for at least 25 years. From what I have read, the third chakra has its draw backs but its related to ego development and personal power. Its about having seperate identity from your family peers etc. standing up for yourself, having self esteem.
I think there is a type of kundilini energy that rises but i think there is a way for it to happen gradually over ones whole lifetime.
So anyway, I think I have been stuck in a second chakra level of development but have had flashes of brilliance and insights of the other chakra centers.
So ultimately the goal is to be one with god, etc. But I think there is possibly a trap in not developing correctly, for example, thinking you are being a holy renunciate when really you are afraid to go after what you want in life.
I think initially its good to have ego based desires, competitiveness etc. even if ultimately you see past that.
So that was kind of long winded but that is my point, maybe you can relate to some of this, maybe not.
Ted
Comment by Ted — August 4, 2010 @ 7:30 pm
@ speedbird:
Thanks. I agree, I think that was the key thing I was trying to get at with this whole post. The idea of already having everything you need (either developmentally or in regards to information or in regards to anything really) when in fact you don’t. I don’t know exactly, but “thinking you’re done when you’re not” as a vague generalization seems to cover it pretty well. If you think you’re “done” (in whatever sense) and you are “done”, its all good. If you’re not “done” and you know you’re not “done” and accept you have to work on it, its all good. But if you think you’re “done” and you’re not “done”, then you’re in trouble.
Dunno what happens if you think you’re not “done” but you actually are. My guess is that doesn’t happen too often. :)
@ Ted:
No, I agree with this. Acting (or in this case, not acting) out of fear is not being holy. I think I follow you overall, and yeah, I can see what you mean.
I’ve noticed several people mention something called spiritual bypassing, which is what I think you’re talking about. Same kind of idea anyway. Can’t think of any links, but google’ll probably get you something good.
I think when it comes down to something like this, imbalances in chakras, we need to address the problem as-is, and try to really feel our way through it.
I think that’s generally true too, which is why you see so many older people around any spiritual center (or at least I do). But I think there’s also a chance to develop at a younger age as well, though the danger there is going almost far enough but not quite, because you’re held back by legitimate social development stuff.
In any case, its definitely a complicated thing…. :)
Comment by Ian — August 5, 2010 @ 12:20 pm
Indeed it did (approved, now, above). I can what this person is getting at, and I can see the appeal. I think there are some underlying assumptions there that aren’t necessarily true, or at least, could be looked at in a different way, but all in all, I think developing a stronger sense of “self” is good. It reminds me of the little I’ve heard about Gurdjieff’s “self-remembering”.
Comment by Ian — August 5, 2010 @ 12:53 pm
Comment 73, on this page right here:
Yes. It felt like a blip or some shifting within the mind. A synching up feeling. The out -synch feeling, in my experience was that the sensations of “I” were being given more importance than the rest of phenomena. They were being read as having a privileged status. It was this illusory privileged status which was contributing to the clinging, craving and aversion to phenomena. As the mind was identifying phenomena with that “I” sitting on it’s high illusory throne and attaching a desire result on top of that phenomena for the benefit of the sense of “I”.
It is like there is a king on his hill. All his subjects are at the bottom of the hill. Thus all that the king wants and does not want is tied up with how his subjects act. Will they bring him his food? Will they plant the crops and pay taxes? Will they obey him? The answer is no, not really. So the king suffers as he has attached his happiness to the actions of his subjects. What you need to do is level that hill the king is on. The king will still be there so to speak. He will just be the same as all the rest of his subjects. Another subject so to speak. And now he can grow his own crops. There is no longer a king (the “I”) that depends on his subjects (all other phenomena). Cos now there all the same. No higher status for anyone. One does not depend on the other to be happy now. The king is now the same as all the subjects. They keep doing what they do, but now there is no-one (no king) to suffer the consequences. The hill has been leveled. Now there is, as Chris has put it, a leveled playing ground. No more better than!
Comment by Ian — August 5, 2010 @ 1:37 pm
And all of a sudden we’re back in the Arthurian legend…
Comment by speedbird — August 5, 2010 @ 4:33 pm
Knew you’d like that one, speedbird. :)
I read that an immediately thought “the grail king!”
Comment by Ian — August 5, 2010 @ 4:40 pm