PDA

View Full Version : Ego?



Tirisilex
17 August 2010, 07:32 PM
Is Ego and Self Identity the same thing?

NayaSurya
18 August 2010, 09:27 AM
This one, still much enrobed in ignorance as a chocolate covered pretzel is encased in thick chocolate covering.:p

So forgive this fool her help if is not helpful.<3


But, since the ego broke many years ago I can tell you what this fool has made of it.

The answer to this question depends on how far you have fallen down the well.

One time...someone asked me who I am. I replied...bare foot girl. This was a lable for the body...part of the ego.

Many years later, another person asked me this...I replied, Mother.

Again this was merely a lable for this lifetime...part of this flesh bound identity...bits of ego I lug around with me.

Then a wise one asked me this question many many years later and I could no longer answer.

There's a point you begin to understand those lables do not quantify the eternal being within.

At this point...the vessel becomes the girl, the mother...

But the I becomes the knower.

I Know of motherhood I know of barefeet and kentucky blue grass...

But these things do not equate to the being I am. I am always the knower. Life time after life time...this is the truth.

Names, sexual identity...status...eye color...profession and education.

Not me...they are the facade to the greater being.

This piece of divine, still shrouded in ignorance, fears and desires...moves forward.

She calls herself the fool...the dog...and a host of other nouns and adjectives, not allowing any of them to take root. But as this knower evolves...even these lables will fall away.

saidevo
18 August 2010, 10:10 AM
Amazing, NayaSurya! You inspire me to strive for such humility. I pray to God Shiva to grant you his anugraha for loftier levels of experience coupled with a peaceful worldly life.

Tirisilex
18 August 2010, 12:39 PM
Is self identity the same as the knower?

Onkara
18 August 2010, 02:10 PM
Is self identity the same as the knower?

Hi Tirisilex
I would be interested to know what you think the answer is to this question and what the next question might be based on your feeling the first answer is/could be? :)

Ao
18 August 2010, 08:44 PM
Hi Tirisilex
I would be interested to know what you think the answer is to this question and what the next question might be based on your feeling the first answer is/could be? :)

Indeed, interesting. The potentialities one sees in answer to that first question could start one down any number of different paths, and all still be in Sanatana Dharma, in my understanding of things.

What does your intuition tell you, Tirisilex? How do you identify NayaSurya's knower with the Self?

Tirisilex
18 August 2010, 10:01 PM
Well.. I see that of being aware that which identifiably is an awareness experiencing moving phenomena. This is outside of ego.. The ego cares only for oneself.. Moving your attention from your ego to awareness, and resting in that, is more compassionate to others.. Maybe? I hope I'm making sense

There is awareness then there is the acknowledgment of self.. You have a body to take care of.. You Identify with that need.. There is awareness and there is the "Observer (Controller) of actions"

Am I close?

atanu
18 August 2010, 11:41 PM
The answer to this question depends on how far you have fallen down the well.
But the I becomes the knower.


Namaste Naya

An excellent post, so much based on experience.

As per Guru's teaching and based on confirmation through fleeting experiences, i say that the Truth becomes I, then the Seer, then the Knower -- and then the fall. But again, Veda says that Vishnu proclaims "I am". So, it is rising up and falling down the well -so aptly described by you.

I think the below will mean the same as your saying in blue fonts above:

The answer to this question will depend on how far the dwarf has disintegrated, since any theorising about ego is done by the dwarf itself..

Om Namah Shivaya

Onkara
19 August 2010, 04:27 AM
Well.. I see that of being aware that which identifiably is an awareness experiencing moving phenomena. This is outside of ego.. The ego cares only for oneself.. Moving your attention from your ego to awareness, and resting in that, is more compassionate to others.. Maybe? I hope I'm making sense

There is awareness then there is the acknowledgment of self.. You have a body to take care of.. You Identify with that need.. There is awareness and there is the "Observer (Controller) of actions"


Namaste Tirisilex
I think this is an excellent answer, better than I was typing intially in response! So why not keep the attention on awareness?





I think the below will mean the same as your saying in blue fonts above:

The answer to this question will depend on how far the dwarf has disintegrated, since any theorising about ego is done by the dwarf itself..

Om Namah Shivaya
Namaste friend Atanu
My opinion is slightly different, I hope I can share it with you for thought.

Theorising is done by the intellect-mind, perhaps in the form "what to do?", the ego (ahankara) is that which feels it needs to act and take on that decision. The ego will then act in order to disintigrate itself. This I feel is the trap, as ultimately we are told that all doing by me to reduce ego only enforces the sense of doership i.e. of "I did that" which is spoken by and reinforces the ego (ahankara).

Ego itself may not disapear as it is a part of Lord Krisha's prakriti, thus outside of the Jiva's control. What may occour is that the witnessing becomes dominant.

I do not assume I am telling you anything new, however I would be interested in where this conversation leads. :)

My question becomes, what propels action once the ego is known to be only the "I do" stream of thoughts?

NayaSurya
19 August 2010, 05:54 AM
Snip Said:

I would be interested to know what you think the answer is to this question and what the next question might be based on your feeling the first answer is/could be? :)




Snip, the question you ask could bring about the second question which could answer the first.

Is self Identity = to knower?

We could explore this more and think about the answer. Yes or No.

Is self Identity = to knower? One person may say no...

Then immediately the question would arise...Then what is it?

What is self identity?

This answer will depend on where you are along the path...or how far deep you have become affected.


Just the regular person, untouched by the things which most of us have become affected by....they would give you the standard definition. (dictionary says the same thing)

Race, religion, gender, status, physical traits such as beautiful. Veteran, Mother...little sister...Father...

Then there are those who would give a different definition.

Self Identity would be the realization that the Being is everything...it is the only Thing...as all is a piece of the Wondrous Whole.

There are probably another dozen or so answers that would be just as true for certain individuals.

Answer Snip's question, wait for the second and then you may see something wonderful. :p




Namaste Naya



As per Guru's teaching and based on confirmation through fleeting experiences, i say that the Truth becomes I, then the Seer, then the Knower -- and then the fall. But again, Veda says that Vishnu proclaims "I am". So, it is rising up and falling down the well -so aptly described by you.

I think the below will mean the same as your saying in blue fonts above:

The answer to this question will depend on how far the dwarf has disintegrated, since any theorising about ego is done by the dwarf itself..

Om Namah Shivaya


Yes, it is the same as my idea, but yours is truly a more dharmic way of stating it. Mine, is coming from the Kentucky hills the location of most of my learning...and not the beautiful Veda, shelter of the Truth.

atanu
19 August 2010, 06:51 AM
Namaste friend Atanu
My opinion is slightly different, I hope I can share it with you for thought.

Theorising is done by the intellect-mind, perhaps in the form "what to do?", the ego (ahankara) is that which feels it needs to act and take on that decision. The ego will then act in order to disintigrate itself. This I feel is the trap, as ultimately we are told that all doing by me to reduce ego only enforces the sense of doership i.e. of "I did that" which is spoken by and reinforces the ego (ahankara).

Namaste Snip

Thank you for your observations. I agree to the above. Yet, Guru Ramana's teaching, which I follow, is that ego-intellect are not different entities but different names of the same effect -- of creation of an imaginary third person between the Subject (Self) and the objects.

But I have no problem with your observation.


Ego itself may not disapear as it is a part of Lord Krisha's prakriti, thus outside of the Jiva's control. What may occour is that the witnessing becomes dominant.

Here I have slightly different understanding.

It is true that Purusha creates individual souls as separate entitities (as per Gaudapada Karika). But, the higher Prakriti of Purusha is a singular sat-chit-ananda, which must be known. And the lower Prakriti is a product, which must be transcended. The jivas are apparently true only in the lower prakriti.

My understanding on "what propels action once the ego is known to be only the "I do" stream of thoughts?", is a bit complex to describe.

We fear that "If I do not do this task, then this will be the adverse result". Or, "If I do this, then this will be the beneficial result".

Both these views and their variations are, in teaching of Shri Ramana, errors -- since this is the view of ego, which itself is an error. If I try to explain it, I will land in trouble. So, I leave it as such by just re-iterating what Aitereya Up. says: "It is impropor for a knower of Self to say that this happened because I did this (or I did not do this)."

Similarly, Shri Krishna teaches Arjuna "Know that you are not the doer.

What is correct from the perspective of a Brahmajnani is correct for all --yet we do not know that.
------------------

To say it in another way. The Self is subtler than the subtlest and has no way to contact a mind and even less so to contact a fleshy arm and propel it to action. At one level actions appear to go one by our efforts. At another level, actions appear to go on by the will of Ishwara, imposed on prakriti in prakriti. But at another level, there is nothing but sadashiva. Some describe it as "Nothing ever happened".

But I think that the above becomes only a theoretical discussion without the experience of Nirvikalpa Samadhi, which is absolutely without a second and is devoid of any action, and experiecer of Nirvikalpa do proclaim "Nothing Ever happened". Actually, it is easy to understand when we are perfect with Dvaita knowledge. From without beginning, the Self and the internal organ (the Mind - Mahat) are two distinct entitities-- just as you and your car (an instrument) are different. As long as Mind moves, there is world and creation and action. When the mind is tranquil, it is not different from the Self, wherein there is no doer and it has for its essential nature the sat-chit-ananda. You will note that by definition, sat-chit-ananda is devoid of an actor.

And it may not be easy for all to comprehend that as long as there is even a slight movement of the mind, the actorless sat-chit-ananda will not be evident and this very knowledge of an actorless existence will be sneered upon. But for most advaita seekers, the above explanation may help.

Om Namah Shivaya

Onkara
19 August 2010, 08:56 AM
Thank you for your observations. I agree to the above. Yet, Guru Ramana's teaching, which I follow, is that ego-intellect are not different entities but different names of the same effect -- of creation of an imaginary third person between the Subject (Self) and the objects.

But I have no problem with your observation.

Namaste Atanu
I have a Sikh friend, who when asked about the mind, said they saw it as being a part of the whole. That along with your description above resonates nicely and bring the intial need for a psedo-battle between the compartments of the mind to an end. Lets be blunt, the mind only needs to be dissected when we look for clarity through parts, once the clarity comes then is there still any need in considering the ego?

If we are on the non-dual path, then I feel there is wisdom in dropping the parts (of the mind) in acceptance of the whole. In short I enjoy your reply.



My understanding on "what propels action once the ego is known to be only the "I do" stream of thoughts?", is a bit complex to describe.

We fear that "If I do not do this task, then this will be the adverse result". Or, "If I do this, then this will be the beneficial result".

Both these views and their variations are, in teaching of Shri Ramana, errors -- since this is the view of ego, which itself is an error. If I try to explain it, I will land in trouble. So, I leave it as such by just re-iterating what Aitereya Up. says: "It is impropor for a knower of Self to say that this happened because I did this (or I did not do this)."
------------------
(cut for space)
And it may not be easy for all to comprehend that as long as there is even a slight movement of the mind, the actorless sat-chit-ananda will not be evident and this very knowledge of an actorless existence will be sneered upon. But for most advaita seekers, the above explanation may help.

Om Namah Shivaya
Some nice angles here and a lot I will enjoy re-reading! :)

I appreciate your point of not going into description, as it is precisely that which will lead us into conceptualisation and away from the Self. This is my understanding of Sri Ramana’s point on error. What is interesting is our habit to attribute our actions to reasons: “I did that because I thought…” or simply “I told you so!” Along the lines to the point of the Aitereya Up.

It seems to me that even the curiosity and the continued interest in Sanatana Dharma (or scriptures) could be considered to be an action propelled by an inner actor. If so then does one risk labeling the movement of mind, even in that divine direction, to mean there is still a “dwarf lurking” (i.e. we are still considering ourselves to be the actor/ego despite us knowing the answers above)?

atanu
19 August 2010, 12:37 PM
Namaste Atanu

It seems to me that even the curiosity and the continued interest in Sanatana Dharma (or scriptures) could be considered to be an action propelled by an inner actor. If so then does one risk labeling the movement of mind, even in that divine direction, to mean there is still a “dwarf lurking” (i.e. we are still considering ourselves to be the actor/ego despite us knowing the answers above)?

Namaste Snip

This is excellent. This I had anticipated when i said " ----i will land in trouble". Because we cannot ask questions in samadhi and because all these questions rise with movement of mind, it is impossible to discern what it is like with a still mind.

Is it the Self that asks: "Am I the Ego? Am I the actor? Is the dwarf still lurking?" etc. Or can the jada (inert) body or jada mind ask such a question? Neither seems plausible.

I have been taught that, when questions (such as you have noted above) rise in the mind, the counter question "Whose mind?", is auspicious. In general, keeping the mind engaged with a positive divine movement is good. But even gods forget and get tangled with their false egos often. So, keeping the question "Who ?" is taught as a way in Upanishad and gurus. Some have said that being just a Seer is the final goal they aim for. But, as per advaita, that may fall short of the knowledge that Seer, Seen, and the Seeing are in One. So, while being a Seer/seer, one must keep the mind full with the knowledge as to who is seeing? Kena?

Else, if the above way seems impossible/difficult/abstract, IMO, tena tyaktena bhunjithaa may answer most of our requirements and questions raised in this thread.


Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
20 August 2010, 12:08 AM
Dear Snip and friends

Jiva is unlimited soul. In deep sleep it joins the Supreme Soul and though devoid of a mind, it exists blissfully. mAyA and consequent ego makes the jiva appear as circumscribed and Jiva identifies itself with the body or the apparent thinking apparatus (chidabhAsa mind) or the life force as itself.

In most cases jiva exists roaming the three states of waking, dreaming and sleeping, ignorant of anything about its own unlimited blissful pragnya nature.

In second stage, through discrimination, jiva comes to know (through study and discourses) that in deep sleep it is bliss and though devoid of mind, it exists in its primeval pure form. Yet, in this stage there are doubts since the knowledge is just theoretical. Jiva doubts that it will be just a void without the mind and the sensual apparatus. It is a valid fear. But all these fears rise from that conditioned circumscribed idea of jiva and not from Jiva-the fullness, who is fearless, tranquil, without taint, and immortal.

I understand that only on experiencing Turya, the jiva attains its svavabha -- its nature. That is not a dark state. Rather that is the unlimited existence with full freedom to use all instruments.

------------
Guru Namaha
Om Namah Shivaya

Onkara
21 August 2010, 07:11 AM
(cut for space)
Some have said that being just a Seer is the final goal they aim for. But, as per advaita, that may fall short of the knowledge that Seer, Seen, and the Seeing are in One. So, while being a Seer/seer, one must keep the mind full with the knowledge as to who is seeing? Kena?

Else, if the above way seems impossible/difficult/abstract, IMO, tena tyaktena bhunjithaa may answer most of our requirements and questions raised in this thread.


Namaste Atanuji

A few thoughts, if I may: :)
Why do we fall short knowing only "that being just as Seer"? Is it because we still leave room for desire/anger etc to take root? Is this the potential fall we risk at staying with only the idea that "I am Seer" because prarkiti's continues to hold an influence on us as individuals?

For example, I may know I am that which witnesses all, even my ego is witnessed by "me", but still, driven by desire, I will stop at nothing to eat cream cakes! Even though I know that I will fail to burn the calories from those cakes sat waiting for a reply on HDF all day. ;) Thus despite being the Seer, I continue to act on impulsion and desire for cream cakes. I.e. prakriti compels me as I am still an individual seer.

The transformation comes when we know that "all" to be the same as "that". Those more familiar with Tat Tvam Asi will have already seen the direction I am taking. But this is mantra, more than words because with it the question "who's mind" has an influential and resounding answer.

This leads us to: tena tyaktena bhunjithaa... where we begin to know our place as one with all that is.

rkpande
21 August 2010, 10:59 AM
Dear snip,
Without being a road block in such illuminating dialogues, I will throw in my half a penny lest I go deep in the rabbit hole:-
The original question- is ego and self identity same?
I will lean a bit on Samkhya
Ego aka ahamkara is self assertion:- All that is considered(alochita) and reasoned(Mata) refers to me, in that I am competent, all these of senses are for my sake only, this does not concern anyone else, hence I am. Such abhimana, self assertion or consciousness by reference to one self, for it having uncommon or unique operation of its own is Ahamkara, by working upon which determines that this is to be done by me.
Amahakara is jada, no intelligence associated with it, including buddhi and manas. Only jiva or Purusa has intelligence and as such ahamkara operates within the three attributes with varying state as per combination of gunas. A siddha may operate purely under sattavic ahamkara all the time.
Whereas self identity or better still, self identification is a process by which the jiva identifies itself to be different from manas, ahamkara and buddhi and when truly realised the difference by elimination, attains emancipation. Crudely said when jiva learns to drop the bad company of errant friends like manas etc it realises its pure identity.

Onkara
21 August 2010, 03:03 PM
Dear snip,
Without being a road block in such illuminating dialogues, I will throw in my half a penny lest I go deep in the rabbit hole:-
The original question- is ego and self identity same?
I will lean a bit on Samkhya
Ego aka ahamkara is self assertion:- All that is considered(alochita) and reasoned(Mata) refers to me, in that I am competent, all these of senses are for my sake only, this does not concern anyone else, hence I am. Such abhimana, self assertion or consciousness by reference to one self, for it having uncommon or unique operation of its own is Ahamkara, by working upon which determines that this is to be done by me.
Amahakara is jada, no intelligence associated with it, including buddhi and manas. Only jiva or Purusa has intelligence and as such ahamkara operates within the three attributes with varying state as per combination of gunas. A siddha may operate purely under sattavic ahamkara all the time.
Whereas self identity or better still, self identification is a process by which the jiva identifies itself to be different from manas, ahamkara and buddhi and when truly realised the difference by elimination, attains emancipation. Crudely said when jiva learns to drop the bad company of errant friends like manas etc it realises its pure identity.
Dear rkpande
I am pleased you add this! :) To my mind your angle is significant in that you summarise the working of the mind in relation to the Jiva. Permit me to put this into my own words to ensure I understand or need correction:

So when all that is considered(alochita) and reasoned(Mata) is taken by me to be a part of my world and a part of my self identity I am enforcing my individuality by taking it as real. This is enforced by my ego (ahamkara) which is not in itself intelligent but appears to act, but the turth is that it is operated on or manipulated by the gunas.

Self-identification, that is realisation of my true Self (Brahman) is when there is a realisation that all this mind (buddhi, chitta, ahamkara) is being influenced by gunas and can be seen apart or dropped; in other words, witnessed.

If so then the question is, what is it that witnesses or realises itself to be not the mind/ego but rather True Self? The answer is older than us both :)... it is consciousness... or awareness, as our friend Trisilex states above.

Tirisilex
21 August 2010, 06:46 PM
So.. I'm thinking is thought (Hehe) Ego? :dunno:

atanu
25 August 2010, 06:12 AM
Dear rkpande

Self-identification, that is realisation of my true Self (Brahman) is when there is a realisation that all this mind (buddhi, chitta, ahamkara) is being influenced by gunas and can be seen apart or dropped; in other words, witnessed.

If so then the question is, what is it that witnesses or realises itself to be not the mind/ego but rather True Self? The answer is older than us both :)... it is consciousness... or awareness, as our friend Trisilex states above.

Dear Snip

Nicely said.

We can only speak or write of experiences in words -- and that has its limitations. As my favourite poster Brahman says beautifully that we try to illumine but whether the light washes away the darkness cannot be ensured or the washing away may not be instantaneous.

When we say 'Om', we are basically remembering the all pervasive 'I Am'. This all pervasive 'I am' is subtle and absolutely distinct from the 'I am this' knowledge based on which we all work. It is an experience which, imo, cannot be explained easily. When i do japa "Om Namah Shivaya", i am prostrating and sometimes (rarely) successfully enter into the true "I Am", which is absolutely distinct from the 'i' of 'i am prostrating' idea, although, this 'i am prostrating' is connected and is a small extension of the true "I am". Scriptures say: 'His foot is stuck in prakriti'. In my way, i understand, that the connection or the extension of 'Om' into this 'i am atanu' is one of His many legs --- pictorially, He is probably feeling the warmth of water by dipping a toe into water. And He has infinite number of toes dipped in waters.

In other words, we all say "I am". But, very very curiously, that is not the "I am" at all. It is no doubt very very queer but also very very calm experience. Purpose of japa or meditation, IMO, is to dissolve/lose this 'false sense/false location' of 'I Am' and remain in peace.

I hope the above does not remain gibberish.

Om Namah Shivaya

Onkara
25 August 2010, 06:33 AM
(cut for space)

When we say 'Om', we are basically remembering the all pervasive 'I Am'. This all pervasive 'I am' is subtle and absolutely distinct from the 'I am this' knowledge based on which we all work. It is an experience which, imo, cannot be explained easily. When i do japa "Om Namah Shivaya", i am prostrating and sometimes (rarely) successfully enter into the true "I Am", which is absolutely distinct from the 'i' of 'i am prostrating' idea, although, this 'i am prostrating' is connected and is a small extension of the true "I am". Scriptures say: 'His foot is stuck in prakriti'. In my way, i understand, that the connection or the extension of 'Om' into this 'i am atanu' is one of His many legs --- pictorially, He is probably feeling the warmth of water by dipping a toe into water. And He has infinite number of toes dipped in waters.

In other words, we all say "I am". But, very very curiously, that is not the "I am" at all. It is no doubt very very queer but also very very calm experience. Purpose of japa or meditation, IMO, is to dissolve/lose this 'false sense/false location' of 'I Am' and remain in peace.


Dear Atanu
I am glad you took the step to elabraote on this. As you say it is something quite subtle and difficult to put in words. I hope it comes across compliamentary when I say I feel I understand exactly what you mean.

I can relate to my recent activity where I have taken up Japa and focused my mind on remembering that the words I repeat communicate the knowing that "Brahman resides within and without". I have found that when the focus is undistrubed by thought then the sensation that "I am" is loudest and there is a wonderous knowing with it. Thought or sense of environment may bring me back to "I am performing japa or I am prostrating".

However what we appear to have noticed is that even in the "I am postrating" we are still aware that there is something beyond, which is the "I am" which permeates all. We can even recall it now (recall not in memory but in fact), in the present moment in order to speak of it.

So there is some hope, as although we may feel we are mind drawn to "His foot in prakriti" through the movment caused by our actions, postures, thoughts and sensations, we are still blessed to know what lies behind the movement as "I am".

I hope too my choice of words makes sense :)

Onkara
25 August 2010, 07:53 AM
So.. I'm thinking is thought (Hehe) Ego? :dunno:
Yes, I think so ;)

Because thinking occurs we attribute a cause to that thinking and call it "I".

When we compare that experience to others "I" it appears to be different, so the "I" is reinforced as being independent in time and space.

Independence becomes reinforced through memory, actions and imagination, (through duality) however the foundation for all of this is rarely investigated.

When Sri Krishna tells us in the Bhagavad Gita (e.g. 3.5) that man cannot help but act, a spanner is thrown into the works for those looking for an explanation as to why they do what they do.

Now the ego must explain itself. When the ego is ordered to show itself it must step forward to admit that it was just a thought all along.

sunyata07
25 August 2010, 01:31 PM
Namaste everyone,

I don't want to interrupt the exchange of ideas here, but I do want to thank Tirisilex for starting this thread. I have learned a lot more about the ego and the mind's label of "I" than I had previously assumed. From the previous posts by Snip, Atanu and Nayasurya, I gather then that the "I" concept isn't so much an existence in itself as it is merely an expression of the Ultimate Awareness pervading the universe.

"It is Nature's three constituents
That does all work wherever works are done;
But he whose self is fooled by the ego,
Thinks, 'It is I who do'."
~ B.G., 3.27.

Does this mean that the ego is really an illusory concept? So, rather than you living, thinking and doing through life, it is actually the other way around. The lesson Krishna gives on our not being the doer of our deeds strikes me as being something similar to what I was reading about the Taoist concept of 無爲 (wu wei - "no action"). The full concept goes along the lines of "Do nothing and achieve everything". It doesn't so much suggest inertia, as it does going with the flow of things - everything, including your thoughts and sense of "self" are occuring naturally of its own accord.

And then there's Buddha's teaching, similar to Krishna's:

"Suffering exists, but none who suffer;
The deed there is, but no doer thereof."


In other words, we all say "I am". But, very very curiously, that is not the "I am" at all. It is no doubt very very queer but also very very calm experience. Purpose of japa or meditation, IMO, is to dissolve/lose this 'false sense/false location' of 'I Am' and remain in peace.

I would like to remark on this point, and hopefully it will not change the topic of this post too drastically. I think I understand what you mean by that strange serenity that comes from not identifying with oneself, or when you let go of thinking "I am performing japa". Still being a novice in dhyana yoga I cannot say I have had this experience much when I am reciting a mantra, but I have experienced it in a cruder, more primitive form. It will sound melodramatic, but it has happened when I am stargazing (one of my favourite pastimes). Perhaps the majesty of nature or of something greater than the little self makes it easier to shed the sense of "I"? :)

Ao
26 August 2010, 04:40 AM
I would like to remark on this point, and hopefully it will not change the topic of this post too drastically. I think I understand what you mean by that strange serenity that comes from not identifying with oneself, or when you let go of thinking "I am performing japa". Still being a novice in dhyana yoga I cannot say I have had this experience much when I am reciting a mantra, but I have experienced it in a cruder, more primitive form. It will sound melodramatic, but it has happened when I am stargazing (one of my favourite pastimes). Perhaps the majesty of nature or of something greater than the little self makes it easier to shed the sense of "I"? :)

Namaste all,

This has been a very interesting thread, and juxtaposes nicely with the thread on reincarnation and I-ness. Summarily, how do we view ourselves?

Much has already been said far more eloquently than I could state, but allow me to just add a smidgen regarding the above from Sunyata. For me, on this topic, it helps to think of these things on a tiered relationship. On a practical level, we are all different beings of meat and bone that have various needs, ailments, tastes (Snip's cream cakes, for example;)), etc. However, on the transcendental level, which is the truest level--or the level of Nirguna Brahman--all of us and much more are merely extensions or manifestations of the Self. Thoughts in Its mind, if you will. Prakriti is playing itself out, with each tiny bit doing what it must and cannot otherwise help but do, but ultimately all of these tiny bits are purely One. I fully agree that looking at the stars reminds us in a simple way of this, and looking to scriptures reminds us of the same in a more profound way.

Many thanks to all for this most interesting discussion. What direction will it take from here? What direction will we take from here?

Onkara
26 August 2010, 12:06 PM
"It is Nature's three constituents
That does all work wherever works are done;
But he whose self is fooled by the ego,
Thinks, 'It is I who do'."
~ B.G., 3.27.

Does this mean that the ego is really an illusory concept? So, rather than you living, thinking and doing through life, it is actually the other way around. The lesson Krishna gives on our not being the doer of our deeds strikes me as being something similar to what I was reading about the Taoist concept of 無爲 (wu wei - "no action"). The full concept goes along the lines of "Do nothing and achieve everything". It doesn't so much suggest inertia, as it does going with the flow of things - everything, including your thoughts and sense of "self" are occuring naturally of its own accord.

And then there's Buddha's teaching, similar to Krishna's:

"Suffering exists, but none who suffer;
The deed there is, but no doer thereof."



when I am stargazing (one of my favourite pastimes). Perhaps the majesty of nature or of something greater than the little self makes it easier to shed the sense of "I"? :)
Namaste Sunyata07 and Andrew
Wow, star gazing, that sounds wonderful! :) I don't wish to encroach on your hobibies but you make a sound observation above. When you are stargazing you mind is with the heavens, so to speak, and so ego quietens and no longer requires you to do anything, you at one with your action, at peace.

You may find the last threads in the post on Shakti and Maya (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=49563#post49563) of some use as the topics are fairly similar at that point.

Atanu Ji and I discussed the reality of the ego earlier. My impression is that ego is not illusion itself as Krishna confirms it to be a part of his nature or prakriti. So to deny it completely or claim it dies would not be useful.

However it's hold over the higher you is illusionary. You are not bound by it. Which I pick up on as being the reason you speak about "no action".

So (in Advaita) although it is you which acts, your actions are not dependent on the ego (you are no the doer). When ego lessens it's grip actions still continue to be witnessed. This is the stillness in the action.

atanu
26 August 2010, 12:30 PM
Namaste Sunyata07 and Andrew
Wow, star gazing, that sounds wonderful! :) I don't wish to encroach on your hobibies but you make a sound observation above. When you are stargazing you mind is with the heavens, so to speak, and so ego quietens and no longer requires you to do anything, you at one with your action, at peace.

You may find the last threads in the post on Shakti and Maya (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=49563#post49563) of some use as the topics are fairly similar at that point.

Atanu Ji and I discussed the reality of the ego earlier. My impression is that ego is not illusion itself as Krishna confirms it to be a part of his nature or prakriti. So to deny it completely or claim it dies would not be useful.

However it's hold over the higher you is illusionary. You are not bound by it. Which I pick up on as being the reason you speak about "no action".

So (in Advaita) although it is you which acts, your actions are not dependent on the ego (you are no the doer). When ego lessens it's grip actions still continue to be witnessed. This is the stillness in the action.

Nam

Namaste snip

I agree with you here. In our early posts in HDF (and even in this thread) we had discriminated between the aham arising of Self and ahankAra associated with "I am this body, who is a General Manager". The latter is the mistake. By your statement that in advaita "you are not the doer", you agree that the notions of doership attributed to a 'body-mind' or to the atma, are mistakes.

(But in scripture there are indications, albeit symbolically, that Purusha itself suffers from mistaken pride of "I" and so the variegated universe. But as this is not commonly known or as i may also be fully wrong in understanding, i do not wish to push it here).

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
26 August 2010, 12:43 PM
Namaste everyone,

I would like to remark on this point, and hopefully it will not change the topic of this post too drastically. I think I understand what you mean by that strange serenity that comes from not identifying with oneself, or when you let go of thinking "I am performing japa". Still being a novice in dhyana yoga I cannot say I have had this experience much when I am reciting a mantra, but I have experienced it in a cruder, more primitive form. It will sound melodramatic, but it has happened when I am stargazing (one of my favourite pastimes). Perhaps the majesty of nature or of something greater than the little self makes it easier to shed the sense of "I"? :)

Namaste Sunyata

The experience of stargazing is genuine. In several posts we have discussed this phenomenon. This bliss is there all the time, sometimes perceived by us between two thoughts, between waking and sleeeping, between night and dawn, between dusk and night -----and especially on waking up at 4.00 AM.

When one stargazes or when one looks at an eagle fying high, the awareness leaves the body and for a moment, before it grasps the object (the star or the eagle), it becomes objectless. It does not land then -- and for that moment one gets a hint of flash of bliss. sarabhanga ji used to say "Grasp that moment".

Onkara
26 August 2010, 12:47 PM
Nam

Namaste snip

I agree with you here. In our early posts in HDF (and even in this thread) we had discriminated between the aham arising of Self and ahankAra associated with "I am this body, who is a General Manager". The latter is the mistake. By your statement that in advaita "you are not the doer", you agree that the notions of doership attributed to a 'body-mind' or to the atma, are mistakes.

(But in scripture there are indications, albeit symbolically, that Purusha itself suffers from mistaken pride of "I" and so the variegated universe. But as this is not commonly known or as i may also be fully wrong in understanding, i do not wish to push it here).

Om Namah Shivaya
Namaste Atanu
Superb, I was thinking of starting a thread on Pride and was hoping to do a little research before posting. Your point above shows depth. You are right in my opinion too, the "I" stakes claim.... e.g. "I did that, they will think I am a genius".

I consider this to be a powerless vāsanā or pattern and it makes me smile to myself.

Arav
26 August 2010, 06:06 PM
I look at the ego as bodily identification. The feeling "I am the body" is the "I" thought or the Ego. From that one thought all other thoughts arise. So Ego is nothing more than Bodily Identification. That is how I see it and I find it simple.

jasdir
21 February 2011, 08:35 AM
Is Ego and Self Identity the same thing?
No.

Just take out, only your "Address" from your "Self Identity" the rest which is left behind totally is called "Ego".


_/\_ Jasdir

yajvan
21 February 2011, 05:11 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast&#233;

Let me offer another view for one's consideration. The key to understanding ego, as I see it, is in its saṃskṛt name:

ego = ahaṃkāra ( some spell ahaṅkāra )

ahaṃkāra अहंकार - we can decode it this way ahaṃ+ kāra which is I (ahaṃ) + doer (kāra&#185;).

Now some say this is = to ahaṃkaraṇa which is defined as 'conception of individuality ' and this is my point to offer to the reader.
It is the ego that makes one the ~individual~ the singular vs. the universal.

It is the idea of this ahaṃ (I) as if it acts. We know this ahaṃ from other posts? Ahaṃ in its highest sense is a + ha + ṃ :

a = viṣṇu ( expansiveness)
ha = is knowledge ; yet it is another name for a form of śiva or bhairava ( Being)
ṃ = anusvāra and we will leave for another post.

So this ego is condensed Univeral Being in us.

praṇām

words
kāra - making , doing , working , a maker , doer .

Onkara
22 February 2011, 02:39 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

Let me offer another view for one's consideration. The key to understanding ego, as I see it, is in its saṃskṛt name:

ego = ahaṃkāra ( some spell ahaṅkāra )

ahaṃkāra अहंकार - we can decode it this way ahaṃ+ kāra which is I (ahaṃ) + doer (kāraš).

Now some say this is = to ahaṃkaraṇa which is defined as 'conception of individuality ' and this is my point to offer to the reader.
It is the ego that makes one the ~individual~ the singular vs. the universal.

It is the idea of this ahaṃ (I) as if it acts. We know this ahaṃ from other posts? Ahaṃ in its highest sense is a + ha + ṃ :

a = viṣṇu ( expansiveness)
ha = is knowledge ; yet it is another name for a form of śiva or bhairava ( Being)
ṃ = anusvāra and we will leave for another post.

So this ego is condensed Univeral Being in us.

praṇām

words
kāra - making , doing , working , a maker , doer .

Dear Yajvan
Could we understand the part regarding the ego being a Universal Being in us as the macrocosm (God) inside the microcosm (Ego)?

I cannot help but feel that you only scrape the surface in what you share here :)

yajvan
22 February 2011, 05:33 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast&#233; Onkara,



Dear Yajvan
Could we understand the part regarding the ego being a Universal Being in us as the macrocosm (God) inside the microcosm (Ego)?

I cannot help but feel that you only scrape the surface in what you share here :)

Here is one way to think of it. Take a clay pot. Inside the pot is pure space or ākāśa that is infinite. This space is the same as the space outside
the pot, yet it seems different due to the boundry of the pot. Now we take the pot and break it. The space is still ākāśa, yet again it is now without boundries.
Like that, the Supreme throttles itself down from universal to individual. It is just with boundries.


The point is ( for me) because brahman is every thing, it must be universal and indvidual at the same time. When one wakes up then the
individual is once again aware of its Universal nature. It never left.
Just as one sits in their home and asks, how do I get home? Makes no sense. We too are like that.

praṇām