Beautiful and clear from Adyashanti, as usual

The word ego can refer to a sense of separate I, or the psychological ego, the operating system for our human self.

When I explore ego - in the first meaning - through the six sense fields, I find that it is just a thought arising here now, taken as true.

Attention gets absorbed in the inside of the thought, there is an identification with it, it is anchored on certain sensations which lends it an appearance of substance and reality - and also a location in space, it becomes a fixed view and identity, and with the sense of the thought being right and true, its reversals become wrong and false, so there is a sense of I and an Other.

“Ego” then is as ephemeral and insubstantial as a thought, since that is all it is. But taking a thought as true has very real effects for our human self in the world, as we can explore through for instance The Work.

This is of course a simplified version of it. When we explore, we can always find new layers of complexity and richness of this - quite beautiful - process.

In terms of the layers of thoughts, I find a layer of space, mapping the five sense fields on a sense of space and extent. And I find an identification with a thought, any thought, which is then mapped on sensations appearing in particular locations in space, guided by an image thought of this body which maps sensations, and this creates a sense of a separate I, of center and periphery.

He shouldn’t use the word “ego”. (Joel, in his new book and his teachings in general.)

(more…)

I don’t often use the word ego, and when I do, it is mostly to show that it is not very useful.

Or it could be to differentiate the two meanings of the word: In a western, psychological sense, where we want a healthy and strong ego. Here, it refers to the “operating system” for our human self, that which helps it orient and function in the world, and we want it in as good operating order as possible. And in an eastern philosophical sense, where it just refers to a sense of a separate I and whatever comes along with that.

In the second sense of the word, as a description of a sense of an I with an Other, and whatever goes with it, it sometimes has a sinister tone to it. “The ego” as some evil entity lurking somewhere, with no good intentions. (Which is why I don’t like using the word.)

But really, the ego in that sense is just from innocence, an innocent belief in stories, taking them as real and substantial, and temporarily overlooking what we already are.

And beyond that, the ego is pure love. A love for this human self and whatever is within its circle of care and compassion. It is pure kindness, pure compassion behind it. No matter how it may look on the surface.

Ego, in both meanings of the word, is pure innocence, pure love.

And, in the second sense of the word, pure - temporary - confusion.

Meanings of ego…

• Organization of the human self, the software allowing it to operate and function in the world. (Software, because it is malleable, although encompasses both body and psyche.)This one stays around before and after Ground awakening, and can continue to heal, mature and develop through experience and practice. Before awakening, this healing, maturing and development makes it easier to be who we take ourselves to be, and after Ground awakening, it makes for better skillful means in expressing and living Ground awakening through this human self, relieving suffering for others in terms of who they take themselves to be, and also invite Ground to awaken to itself through others.
• A sense of separate self, and the field of awake void and form filtered through this sense, creating an appearance of I and Other, center and periphery, outside and inside. This one is created through taking an imagined separate self as real, and can appear very convincing. We can see these stories as only thoughts through various forms of inquiry.
• A fueling of an identity specifying how this separate self is different from the wider world. This one deepens the sense of split between I and the wider world. I become better and worse than others, and stories are fueled about how this is so. We can reduce this sense of split through working with projections, finding in this human self the qualities we see in the wider world, and the other way around. The wider world becomes a mirror for this human self, and we find that anything here is universally human, although also with a certain flavor (and this flavor of uniqueness is also universally human).

As long as there is still a sense of a separate self hanging around, there will inevitably be inflation. Or more precisely, the inherent neutrality is split into a sense of being better and worse than the rest of the world.

Inflation can especially easily happen when the soul level surfaces in its many forms… as alive presence, indwelling God, luminosity, fertile darkness, luminous blackness, or in whatever other form it takes. On the inherent neutrality of all this, stories are placed, and they are inevitably believed in, to some extent at least… oh - I must be special since this is happening to me, finally - all my years of practice is paying off!, I know something others don’t, I am at a more advanced level than others, and so on. As usual, the variations are endless. And it will happen, even if we know, intellectually, the illusion and mistake that is behind it.

Technically, inflation is when the “ego” takes on something as its own, when it really doesn’t belong to the ego. The term “ego” here means (a) a belief in the story of a separate self, and (b) that sense of a separate self is then placed upon this human self. So all that is happening is that what occurs outside of that boundary is, to some extent, placed within the boundary, as if what is inside somehow possesses, or can take credit for, what is outside.

In Zen and some other traditions, they deal with it by not talking about it, and if a student brings it up, the teacher will ignore it, or (figuratively or literally) give the student a smack with the stick.

It works, to some extent, but is also a crude way of dealing with it. Most of the time, it just creates more confusion for the student.

To me, it seems more effective to (a) allow the inflation (it is there anyway, so may as well allow it), and (b) inquire into it to find what is already more true.

(more…)

I am reading the first few pages of Facets of Unity by Almaas, and am as always very impressed by the clarity of his writing, and the realms he is exploring.

On page 7, he writes about the ego as being developed to compensate for loss of contact with Being (which I understand as human self + soul + Big Mind/Heart, which are all facets of Big Mind).

I am sure it will be clarified further into the book, but for now, I wanted to clarify for myself how I see ego (to more easily modify it as I read on)…

Ego as structure

Ego can be used, in a conventional psychological sense, as ego structures, as that which allows this human self to function and operate in the world. It is the personal voices in the Big Mind process. This form of ego is necessary for our human self to function, and its healing, maturing and development continues before and after awakening to realized selflessness.

To use a crude analogy, the Mars Rovers need software to function, and this software is continually developed and refined to allow them to function in more effective, and sometimes new, ways. The ego is to our human self what the software is for the Mars Rovers.

Ego as a sense of I

The other way the terms ego is used is as a sense of a separate I, placed on our human self.

Spirit, the field of awake emptiness and form, is functionally connected with a particular human self, and forgets about itself as a field, with inherently no center and no I anywhere, and develops a sense of a separate I, placed on the human self.

There is a perceptual center in the human self, and this perceptual center is made into an “I” center.

This is the version of ego that comes from and creates the illusion of I and Other, and creates all the drama, discomfort and stress.

Without it, when the field awakens to itself as a field, there is just awake emptiness and form, with no I anywhere. There is a sense of ease.

Ego structured in different contexts

Going back to the ego structures, and this is what I expect Almaas will write more about, we see that they come out differently depending on which context they are formed, or reorganized, within.

When formed and organized within the context of a sense of I, they are formed within the assumption of separation. They reflect, and operate as if, there is an I as this human self, and Other as the wider world. There is, by necessity, trauma here as well, to different degrees - reactiveness, habitual and obsessive patterns, and so on.

When the field awakens to itself as a field, realizing that there was no I there in the first place, these ego structures are invited to reorganize within this new context of realized selflessness. The reorganization is bound to happen to some extent, and it can be helped along with some conscious alignment with and facilitation of this reorganization process.

It will allow the human self, emotionally and in terms of view, to realigned within a realization of no I anywhere. It reorganizes, gradually and in a deepening way, to all as Spirit.

Emotionally, there is less reactiveness, they give a sense of fullness, and of ongoing support and nourishment. The view functions gradually more transdually, differentiating while reflecting a nondual realization.

And it is certainly also possible for the field to never forget itself as a field, even as it is connected with a particular human self. It stays awake to itself as a field, while the human self develops and matures. This may be more common as humanity evolves further, although who knows.

Reading some Jung again, triggered by the alchemical images coming up in waking and sleep processes, I am reminded of the two meanings of the word ego.

One meaning is as an organizing principle for our human self. It is that which differentiates and allows this human self to function in the world. It is the operating system of this human self, in a way. This is the realm of conventional western psychology.

The other meaning comes from eastern philosophies, and also from the informal use of the word as in he has a big ego. This comes from a belief in the idea of I and a particular identity to flesh it out. From this comes a sense of I, an experience of I and Other, a sense of being different, of being better or worse than, of pushing something away and holding onto something else, of something to protect, and so on.

The psychological ego is essential for the human self to function well in the world, before and after awakening to selflessness. It needs to be mature, differentiated, well developed.

The other ego is just a sense of an I, placed on top of something inherently and already absent of an I. There is no I there, anywhere, so although this sense of I appears very real, and certainly influences how the human self operates in the world (with a great deal of drama), it is inherently innocent. Even the sense of I does not have any I in it.

So in our lives, we want to develop the psychological ego, and we may want to take a closer look at the other ego - the sense of I. What do I get from holding onto this sense of I? What are the consequences? Is there really an I there? Can I find it anywhere? Who or what would I be without it? What would I be if the content of awareness is the same, but with no I there anywhere?

We may find, as Sakyamuni Buddha did, that the source of suffering is the sense of I, that release from suffering is for the field of seeing and seen to awaken to its own nature absent of any I, and that there is a path from one to the other.

This is again pretty basic, but a good reminder for me…

Two meanings of the word ego

The word ego seems to be typically used in two different ways.

One is in the western psychological sense, as the software for a (relatively mature) human being. It is an organization of the psyche which allows us to function in the world, with at least a minimum of effectiveness. This ego is necessary, and can be more or less mature and well functioning.

In eastern traditions, it often refers to a sense of I, or a belief in the idea of I. This is the ego that drops away in an awakening to selflessness.

The software reorganizing and realigning

I listened to Spontaneous Awakening by Adyashanti yesterday, and he seems to use the word in the more common psychological sense. The ego, in the sense of the software for a human being, is there before and after an awakening to selflessness. And it may be relatively mature and healthy before and after, or not so mature and healthy before and after.

At the same time, it seems that it does naturally reorganize (to various degrees) after an awakening - it realigns in this new context of Spirit awakened to its own nature. And in this sense, it tends to mature and heal following and within an awakening to selflessness - especially if that maturing is emphasized and encouraged.

Maturing and dropping away

So in a western psychological sense, the ego remains after an awakening - and tends to realign and mature within this awakening, especially if that is encouraged.

And in an eastern sense, the ego is obliterated in the awakening. The sense of I is seen through as only a temporary appearance created by the belief in the idea of I. There is only what is, with no I anywhere. The content of awareness may be the same as before, but the context changes - from a sense of I to a realization of selflessness.

I went to a talk by a guest speaker at the Center for Sacred Sciences Sunday. What is has clearly awakened to its own nature through him, and just listening allowed the vague sense of I to dissipate more.

Still, there were parts of the content that does not seem to align with my own experiences.

For instance, he talked a few times about the ego fighting its dissolution, fearing its death and so on. This is a quite common way of talking about it, but it seems clearly inaccurate as well. Really, this fighting seems to be an impression that only arises when there is still a belief in I there.

After the belief in I falls away, the whole process appears different. Now, we see that what appears to be “ego fighting” is just innocent habitual patterns. That is all. There was no ego in the first place, only the appearance of it from an overlay of the idea of I. It was a fiction all along. And the habitual patterns are only experienced as a problem to the extent there is identification with them.

And the belief in the idea of I is equally and completely innocent. It is just there as long as it has to, only as long as there has not been a clear seeing of the nature of what is being inherently absent of any I.

Although less than before, the word “ego” is still used in some teachings, often talked about as something substantial, something that resists change, something that functions as a straitjacket. Even - sometimes - as something that is implicitly or explicitly bad, evil, holding us back, to be overcome, and so on.

Belief in the idea of I

When I look at it, all I find is just a belief in an idea. A belief in the idea of “I”, and placed on something finite - usually part of our human self, or placed on something that is not really finite, but certainly just a segment of what is, the seeing, the witness.

And from this belief comes all the things we associate with “ego”: sense of separation, sense of being an object in the world, resistance, narrowness, self-centeredness, protectiveness, rigidity, stuckness, blind attractions and repulsions, and so on.

Innocent mistake

There is just an innocent and temporary mistake, resulting in a wide range of phenomena in our human lives - most of which creates a sense of drama, and of suffering.

It all comes from an unexamined belief. A core belief, which forms our whole outlook on life and the world, and how we live our lives. I does have dramatic consequences. But it is still an innocent mistake. And not even a mistake, it just is. It is part of being human today, and has been for generations.

Falling away

As soon as we see through this belief, as soon as we realize that no phenomena - no segment of what is, has any inherent “I” in it, then we drop it as a hot coal as some say. There is no struggle. Nothing to resist. Nothing to fight. Only the seeing of it. Then the rest happens on its own.

Process

Before this happens, here is a habitual sense of self, and it is unexamined. It seems very real, very substantial. I believe in the idea of “I” and place it on some parts of this human self. I am an object in the world. I am here, everything else is out there. From this, the whole human drama is created and plays itself out.

Then, there is an intuition of selflessness, a hunch, a glimpse, a taste of it. And we cannot really believe in it any longer, although the vague habitual sense of self may still hang around for a while. It is a habitual pattern, after all. Here, when I look I find myself as that in which the whole world of phenomena plays itself out, including my human self.

Finally, after more exploring, more glimpses, more tastes, it shifts and comes into the foreground. Now, there is no doubt, no question, nothing more to explore. It is clear. There is no “I” inherent in any forms, no “I” in any phenomena, no “I” to be placed anywhere. There is just what is, with no “I” anywhere. Just the field of what is. Just the groundless ground, forming itself into these myriads of temporary forms - this human self, these sensations, feelings, emotions, thoughts, focus, awareness, and this world, these trees, buildings, cars, people, plants, clouds, stars, galaxies.

The term “ego” is sometimes used in a way that could be a little confusing.

To me, it seems that it refers to awareness (consciousness) identified with the small self. It is completely caught up in the processes of the small self - the habitual patterns of emotions, thoughts and behaviors. Outer situations trigger habitual responses, and awareness has no choice but to either fuel these or try to push them away. It is exhausting, and leads to a good deal of suffering.

When awareness first awaken to its own nature - as awareness empty of characteristics - the pattern can begin to soften and dissolve. From here, there will be an oscillation where awareness is sometimes caught up in the habitual processes of the small self, and sometimes resting in its own nature - allowing experiences to arise without needing to fuel or push them away. If this is made into a practice, there will be a gradual movement away from the first (caught up in small self) and towards the second (resting in its own nature).

In the gradual process, this process leads to a sense of Big Mind (embracing the absolute and relative), and glimpses and then a more stable awakening of awareness as Big Mind. The full blown experience may also be called Cosmic Consciousness (the universe is consciousness, and I am that consciousness).

Gradually, the “ego” is dissolved. Awareness is no longer exclusively identified with the small self, although it may occasionally - at some times and some situations - be caught up in the processes of the small self (maybe especially in areas where there is still healing needed). This temporary contraction can also be held within the nature of awareness. It is a good opportunity to remind ourselves of humility and of not needing to protect or justify anything. It is what it is.

Footnote: Even after an awakening into Big Mind, awareness may still be blindly identified with aspects of the small self. In short, there is a belief in a thought. In this case, situations that do not correspond with the belief will trigger a contraction, which leads to suffering. There may also be a certain rigidity around it, one-sidedness in view, a need for justification, something (an idea) to protect, and possibly shame and guilt. This will tend to appear unhealthy, even from a conventional view. Any of these is a reminder to look at what is going on. Where am I stuck? What thought do I believe in?