Saga of the "ego"

[atanu]

-------Back to "OP", I would be interested in your opinion regarding the truth in Amma’s statement.

Blessings,

“Every thing is God’s creation except the Ego”

There are infinite millions of perspectives, flavours and colours of One.

Ego, or the I call, or Ahamkara originates in One only, where else it can come from? But that ego is not ignorance. The sensual ego -- the awareness of boundaries and non-awareness of the unbroken awareness that perceives the boundaries, on the other hand, is ignorance.

Amma must have talked about ignorance. But you are trying a short cut.


Om Namah Shivaya

[nirotu]

Actually there has been no dancing around ---- of course I do not know about you.

There are infinite millions of perspectives, flavours and colours of One.

Ego, or the I call, or Ahamkara originates in One only, where else it can come from? But that ego is not ignorance. The sensual ego -- the awareness of boundaries and non-awareness of the unbroken awareness that perceives the boundaries, on the other hand, is ignorance.

Amma must have talked about ignorance. But you are trying a short cut.

Dear Atanu:

Atanu, look who is dancing around here with words! Let us not split hairs in trying to dissect the nature of ego. Yes, ego can be called in many names. For your benefit, let me change the word “ego” with “ignorance” does that change the meaning of the statement?

The issue here is not what the nature of ego is but instead the origin of the whole entity:-- ego/ignorance/lower “I”/personality etc. If an entity that is not eternal and at the same time is transient, does it share the nature of God? In other words, has it been created by God as opposed to Atman which is a part of God from the beginning?

Thus, instead of trying to look at ego in an analytical way, perhaps to everyone’s benefit keep your focus on the question and not side-track into other areas. The question is not about the nature of ego but if it has been created by God!

It is foolish to assume that higher self will ever begin to fall.

Yes, I agree with you that a soul that is in tune with its higher-self cannot fall! Atanu, Your point is valid and true but somehow I feel we are again getting into play of words here. What Swamiji said can easily be mis-interpreted if you consider higher-self falling under the lower-self in a literal sense. What he meant was that the higher-self can easily get buried under the dark veil of ignorance cast by the lower-self. Actions of such a person looks like coming more from “Fallen Nature” where in, actually his higher-self is buried under the mask of lower-self thereby, bringing in the need of the “Spiritual Journey (My Mantra)”.


Blessings,

[satay]

namaste nirotu,

[FONT=Verdana]

[FONT=Verdana] That starting point is appropriately called “holding the hand of grace” so that the tenacious ego does not get a chance to own the spiritual practices as its own.

Once again, I request you to please outline the steps on how to 'hold this hand of grace'. What are the practical steps on holding this hand? Where is the 'hand' exactly and how do I 'hold' it?

I agree with you that we need to hold the hand of grace. Now, tell me how to accomplish the next step.

More importantly, what's the practical use of holding this hand of grace? any clue?

Also, if GOD is not the originator of Ego/ignorance, then who is? Do we have two originators and thus two creators? Are you implying that there are two equally powerful entities called GOD1 and GOD2?

[atanu]

Dear Atanu:

Atanu, look who is dancing around here with words! ----

OK. Dancing is good. Sorry that you can't.

The issue here is not what the nature of ego is but instead the origin of the whole entity:-- ego/ignorance/lower “I”/personality etc. If an entity that is not eternal and at the same time is transient, does it share the nature of God? In other words, has it been created by God as opposed to Atman which is a part of God from the beginning?

Issue is that God does not create to befuddle and confuse. It is the nature of Brahman itself from the time immemorial.

Ishwara teaches us overcoming the ignorance, but that does not make the ignorance vanish, since what was not created cannot disappear.

Thus, instead of trying to look at ego in an analytical way, perhaps to everyone’s benefit keep your focus on the question and not side-track into other areas. The question is not about the nature of ego but if it has been created by God!

Give up your pedantism, while you can. It is my sweet will as to how I will analyse anything.

Yes, I agree with you that a soul that is in tune with its higher-self cannot fall! Atanu, Your point is valid and true but somehow I feel we are again getting into play of words here. ---

Check up please. You referred to the fall of the higher self. There is no question of higher and lower and no question of fall. We are taught that Atma Na Lipayate.

What you call soul is not Atma. What you call soul is actually the emanation of Atma.


Blessings

Om Namah Shivaya

[saidevo]

Namaste Nirotu and other participants.

The issue here is not what the nature of ego is but instead the origin of the whole entity:-- ego/ignorance/lower “I”/personality etc. If an entity that is not eternal and at the same time is transient, does it share the nature of God? In other words, has it been created by God as opposed to Atman which is a part of God from the beginning?

Thus, instead of trying to look at ego in an analytical way, perhaps to everyone’s benefit keep your focus on the question and not side-track into other areas. The question is not about the nature of ego but if it has been created by God!

Creation of Ego

In Hinduism, creation is by emanation from the formless One God. From the formless God emanate the formed Gods and then they 'create' the universe and its subtle principles, making use of the 'body' and 'consciousness' of the formless God. It is like a potter who is himself a product of Prakriti and Atman making pots out of the clay in the Prakriti. The difference between a potter and formed God is that that latter infuses life into the forms He creates, not in the Christian sense of giving them a standalone life, but by pervading them.

Thus everything including the Ego (Ahamkara) and the false ego (personality) are creations/emanations from the formed Gods. Srimad Bhagavatam is very clear about the nature and order of Hindu cosmic creation.

Bhagavatam says that there are nine divisions of creations. The first six of them are done by Vishnu Himself leaving only the tasks of creation of the vegetable, animal, human and deva kingdoms to Brahma. Vishnu's creation by way of emanation include Mahat, the Cosmic Buddhi and the Cosmic Ahamkara, which is the principle of egoism.

The first manifestation of prakriti is Mahat, the Cosmic Buddhi. Sankara calls it atma mahan, the Great Soul. Mahat is the hiranyagarbha of Rg Veda, the progenitor of all other beings.

From mahat proceeds the Cosmic Ahamkara, the I-ness or the principle of egoism. Buddhi and ahamkara characterize the jivas also because they are all sparks from Brahman. With individual souls, because of the surrounding maya, ahamkara generates personal ego that causes the soul to identify itself with its body and the surrounding world, rather than its true Source.

From ahamkara emanate the ten senses and the mind on the subjective side, and the five subtle Tanmatras of sound, smell, taste, colour and touch on the objective side. From these Tanmatras proceed the pancha bhutas or five gross elements -— earth, water, fire, air and ether.

For more details, check these HDF links:
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=532
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=553

Nature of Ego

Since Brahman takes forms of individual Atmans that are reflected as Jivas when associated with bodies, there are two kinds of egos: spiritual and physical. The spiritual ego is the Ahamkara, which is the I-ness of the Atman even after it is disembodied. It is this Ego that is born again and again. Once it is born and associated with a body, the reflection of Jiva makes it associate with the physical body, which is usually called the personality or the false ego. This false ego vanishes when the body is given up.

Amma is a devotee of Sri Krishna. I strongly doubt she spoke the words, "Everything is God’s creation except the Ego" even in a private talk.

[satay]

namaste,
May be we should all examine what the Lord has to say (nirotu you too)?

chapter 10 verse 32

sarganam adir antas ca
madhyam caivaham arjuna
adhyatma-vidya vidyanam
vadah pravadatam aham

"Of all creations I am the beginning and the end and also the middle, O Arjuna. Of all sciences I am the spiritual science of the self, and among logicians I am the conclusive truth. "

10.34
mrtyuh sarva-haras caham
udbhavas ca bhavisyatam
kirtih srir vak ca narinam
smrtir medha dhrtih ksama

"I am all-devouring death, and I am the generator of all things yet to be. Among women I am fame, fortune, speech, memory, intelligence, faithfulness and patience. "

10.38
dyutam chalayatam asmi
tejas tejasvinam aham
jayo 'smi vyavasayo 'smi
sattvam sattvavatam aham

"I am also the gambling of cheats, and of the splendid I am the splendor. I am victory, I am adventure, and I am the strength of the strong. "

Now, why would GOD be the 'gambling of cheats' yet not responsible for 'ego'?

ps: haven't read all the posts yet on this thread, may be this is answered already.

[satay]

Check up please. You referred to the fall of the higher self. There is no question of higher and lower and no question of fall. We are taught that Atma Na Lipayate.

What you call soul is not Atma. What you call soul is actually the emanation of Atma.


Blessings

Om Namah Shivaya

and what he thinks of 'fallen' is not fallen at all!

[satay]

Namaste Nirotu,

Dear Friends:

Not too long ago a sage from India (popularly known as – Amma) passed through San Francisco and a friend of mine had the opportunity to attend her discourse. While chatting with my friend, I was told about the speaker who had said, “Everything is God’s creation accept the ego”. I began to think about this profound statement. How true it really is!! Every soul is trying to turn to God because that is where it belongs, which is in the presence of God. Yet, the ego does not want to turn to God because God is not its creator!

What is every one’s perspective regarding the truth in this profound statement (quote above)? Or, perhaps, that could form the basis for a deeper discussion on the nature and the role of the “ego” in creation and in man’s spiritual journey.

Blessings,

I am going to outline some assumptions from my part so that my perspective (since you asked) regarding the truth of this statement can be understood clearly.

My assumptions are as follows:
- your friend actually heard these words from the mother's mouth.
- you heard the exact words through your friend.
- what your friend and you are telling us about the statement coming from mother's mouth is correct.

If I don't make these assumptions first, then your OP becomes a hearsay and thus needs no further discussion as no one can verify it. But I am assuming that you and your friends are telling us the truth about this quote.

So now, here is my prespective. I believe this quote is an error. Without the proper context of in which it was made, the way it is presented here, I would have to disagree with mother on this statement.

Either GOD is source of everything or he is not. If he is then he is the source of the Ego/evil/ignorance as well, may be in a round about way but HE is the source as everything begins and ends in HIM.

And that's the beauty, as a Hindu, I don't have to agree with everything our gurus and sages tell us. Everything should go through a personal test by exercising the faculty of buddhi and viveka. We are not to close our brains and take everything as written in stone.


I disagree with the quote completely as it is presented here without the context.

[nirotu]

Once again, I request you to please outline the steps on how to 'hold this hand of grace'. What are the practical steps on holding this hand? Where is the 'hand' exactly and how do I 'hold' it?

I agree with you that we need to hold the hand of grace. Now, tell me how to accomplish the next step.

Dear Satay:

At the expense of sounding personal let me ask you this. When you were growing up as a child, did you ever find the need of a manual of steps or a recipe or a practical guide to know and hold the hand of your father? Surely, I hope you did not! That level of “innocent knowingness” is what needs to be brought back that does not require any recipe or formula.

I am going to outline some assumptions from my part so that my perspective (since you asked) regarding the truth of this statement can be understood clearly.

My assumptions are as follows:
- your friend actually heard these words from the mother's mouth.
- you heard the exact words through your friend.
- what your friend and you are telling us about the statement coming from mother's mouth is correct.

If I don't make these assumptions first, then your OP becomes a hearsay and thus needs no further discussion as no one can verify it. But I am assuming that you and your friends are telling us the truth about this quote.

So now, here is my prespective. I believe this quote is an error. Without the proper context of in which it was made, the way it is presented here, I would have to disagree with mother on this statement.

I disagree with the quote completely as it is presented here without the context.

If you read the OP correctly and flow along with post #6, you will see that Amma was addressing a seeker to his question. Following her discourse during the Q/A session a seeker honestly asked the following: If you (amma) and I are one, why I am not as enlightened as you are? I feel guilty, angry, selfish etc that is contrary to how you feel? This is the context of the answer by Amma. She followed the statement with a beautiful example of Sun and pots (refer to post #6). For a practicing advitin this may pose as dilemma but indeed there is none if one understands as to what aspect and nature of ego she was referring to! Please, look into my response to Saidevo.

More importantly, what's the practical use of holding this hand of grace? any clue?

Here is my understanding of Grace. Again, my views are not necessarily along the lines of those who profess Advaita or other branches. I am merely responding to your question.

Grace is primarily a response of God in love. It recognizes that God does not love us because of what we do, but in spite of what we do. That does not mean we become irresponsible with our actions thinking Grace is always there! The meaning of this is best described when we understand, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” I do believe that the underlying principle of God’s grace is embedded in His unconditional love towards His creation. In response to that benevolent grace, our gratitude turns to practice the virtues described in scriptures and that includes paths of worship, jnana, bhakti, obedience and service etc.

Practically speaking, I feel we are all living on a borrowed time. I do feel, but for the grace of God, I would have been dead a long time ago! When I was very young (about 12) I was afflicted with a medical problem and was given up for dead. Not being able to eat even a morsel of food, I was down to bare bones. Somehow I felt that God was being merciful to me and chose not to let me die and gave me grace to endure the hardship and come back to normal. No doctors could explain why it turned out so! While everyone was trying to reconcile this as an aberration of some kind and stuck to their logic and science, I somehow felt that it was a divine intervention. To this day, I still do not know why I was spared except that I live with a hope that He will reveal that to me someday!

I have lived all my life believing that it is the Grace that brought me thus far and only the Grace will lead me to Him! As Philip Yancey once said, “The world thirsts for God’s grace in ways it does not even recognize.” Can any of us experience anything in life of greater personal advantage to our souls than possession of God’s Grace? I do feel that without grace we are like boats adrift on a sea of human speculation. When you look around and see the ravages of evil upon each person you will see that the only hope for all mortals is the true grace and mercy of God!


As I understand it, without the accurate understanding of our shortcomings we will never come to know the meaning of God’s grace. Seeking after God has been the history of our race. Many think this is precisely what they are doing but I fervently believe that the human creation has occurred with a spiritual vacuum that only He can fill. In our natural state, apart from God’s grace, tendency of man has been not to fill with God but try to fill it with other things!


Blessings,

[nirotu]

Creation of Ego

. . . Thus everything including the Ego (Ahamkara) and the false ego (personality) are creations/emanations from the formed Gods. Srimad Bhagavatam is very clear about the nature and order of Hindu cosmic creation.

Nature of Ego

Since Brahman takes forms of individual Atmans that are reflected as Jivas when associated with bodies, there are two kinds of egos: spiritual and physical. The spiritual ego is the Ahamkara, which is the I-ness of the Atman even after it is disembodied. It is this Ego that is born again and again. Once it is born and associated with a body, the reflection of Jiva makes it associate with the physical body, which is usually called the personality or the false ego. This false ego vanishes when the body is given up.

Amma is a devotee of Sri Krishna. I strongly doubt she spoke the words, "Everything is God’s creation except the Ego" even in a private talk.

Dear Saidevo:

Thank you for an excellent exposition of the nature of ego. I agree with you. There is no doubt that if one holds the position; God is the creator of everything then yes, ego is also one of His creations. In that context, you seem to deny Amma’s statement. It is understandable from an Advaitic point of view where everything is one, emanating from one and merging into one! But I submit to you that while you are correct in your note, I also agree with Amma’s statement as well. Here is how I like to understand it. Amma indeed made that statement and I have elaborated the context in which it was made to Satay.

Ultimately, everything is out of His emanation. But, in the context of creation the ego we are talking about is the “functioning ego” that has become a veiling entity. It has become an entity that is distracting the reality of the goal or fulfilling God’s purpose in creation. Because of that, what Sages (Amma included) mean is that in the experiencer or a seeker that level of the functioning ego is not doing God’s bidding! The functioning ego has such a hold on human nature that it is no longer conscious of God and that is what she was addressing. It was so dominating in man that he began to forget the father.

It is pure ego (Ahamkara) that we are all born with. It was absolutely essential to identify us with others. Even Sages and Jesus Christ included needed that for survival. Sages as well as Jesus Christ had “Ahamkara” (pure ego) but it never became extremely functioning. In Jesus it did not veil Christ in Him. Jesus had to wake up, brush his teeth, eat, drink and be called the son of Mary and yet He never allowed functioning ego to take its hold in that He always knew His father and His relationship with Him.

In other words, just like how one part mixed up with matter became an alloy, the pure ego has become a “functioning ego” (so to speak) in the context of creation. Look at the universe and all created elements by God. Hydrogen, oxygen, iron all these elements and much more – all pure. But once created, under proper conditions (pressure, temperature) God also allowed alloys to form. For example, iron does mate with oxygen to form iron-oxide known as “rust” and we don’t particularly like it. Likewise, human free-will created proper condition that allowed for “functioning ego” to evolve.


If an ego that interferes with true purpose of creation then it becomes “functioning ego.” Amma was speaking about that “functioning ego”, which indeed was not through the creative process of God!

You may have differing view but this is how I can reconcile with her statement!

Blessings,