|
Post by amit on Mar 22, 2020 8:25:02 GMT -5
The ego often resonates with some as the defensive character created by mind in response to a request from the organism to protect from the discomfort of rejection. So mind constructs a false character that will best deflect the critisisms of main caretakers.
To be most effective the person forgets that this is a construction (repression) and regards it as the actual character of the organism. It takes energy for the mind to maintain this facade so it monitors the constructon throughout life to see if elements of it, perhaps all of it, can be dropped because the organism has developed to discern and not necessarily see rejection as valid. So to drop the ego one must have developed this discernment and be able to deploy the ego conciously when it feels necessary to deflect rejection, knowing that it is a facade, but until then the ego is an essential defence, dropped at the peril of the organism. It has not been constructed as a defence for no reason. Our mental hospitals are full of people whose ego has been destroyed while still necessary. It is possible to know that the construced character is a defence without the need to destroy it prematurely. You will know if your mind is still running an ego if you refer to yourself as having a character/personality.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2020 8:46:16 GMT -5
The ego often resonates with some as the defensive character created by mind in response to a request from the organism to protect from the discomfort of rejection. So mind constructs a false character that will best deflect the critisisms of main caretakers. To be most effective the person forgets that this is a construction (repression) and regards it as the actual character of the organism. It takes energy for the mind to maintain this facade so it monitors the constructon throughout life to see if elements of it, perhaps all of it, can be dropped because the organism has developed to discern and not necessarily see rejection as valid. So to drop the ego one must have developed this discernment and be able to deploy the ego conciously when it feels necessary to deflect rejection, knowing that it is a facade, but until then the ego is an essential defence, dropped at the peril of the organism. It has not been constructed as a defence for no reason. Our mental hospitals are full of people whose ego has been destroyed while still necessary. It is possible to know that the construced character is a defence without the need to destroy it prematurely. You will know if your mind is still running an ego if you refer to yourself as having a character/personality. I really like this, amit. So it's like a mask we put on because if the humans saw what we were really like they'd hang or crucify us. But the anointed know it's just a mask. The anointed are shape- shifters. This actually jives with Ramana. He maintains the ego is destroyed, but perhaps it's the idea of an actual person that is surrendered--wait, that is the ego. Cool. Thanks. This ego appreciates this. Watch out for the other egos here.
|
|
|
Post by amit on Mar 22, 2020 11:44:38 GMT -5
Yes in this propostion ALL character/personality is a defensive construction of the mind. Some caretakers are more tricky to defend against than others, and some minds are better at this construction than others. People may have some idea how tricky are the people they deal with in thier lives, and the mind may be good at the defensive construction. Other minds may not be so good at it and the organism is left vunerable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2020 12:45:14 GMT -5
Yes in this propostion ALL character/personality is a defensive construction of the mind. Some caretakers are more tricky to defend against than others, and some minds are better at this construction than others. People may have some idea how tricky are the people they deal with in thier lives, and the mind may be good at the defensive construction. Other minds may not be so good at it and the organism is left vunerable. Strangely enough this ego, mind is quite adept, but a detriment to the organism. If the body just does. It will do what it needs to do, no asthma. If the mind takes on a defending posture, there is asthma. Funny. I control, the get rid of, the asthma ( inflammation) thru visualization, soothing, serene stories.
|
|
|
Post by amit on Mar 22, 2020 14:02:43 GMT -5
Yes Ego is often regarded as detrimental depending on how it is defined. The definition I have used regards it as beneficial, even essential while necessary. But it varies as ego's vary.
|
|
|
Post by amit on Mar 22, 2020 14:04:29 GMT -5
Yes in this propostion ALL character/personality is a defensive construction of the mind. Some caretakers are more tricky to defend against than others, and some minds are better at this construction than others. People may have some idea how tricky are the people they deal with in thier lives, and the mind may be good at the defensive construction. Other minds may not be so good at it and the organism is left vunerable. Strangely enough this ego, mind is quite adept, but a detriment to the organism. If the body just does. It will do what it needs to do, no asthma. If the mind takes on a defending posture, there is asthma. Funny. I control, the get rid of, the asthma ( inflammation) thru visualization, soothing, serene stories.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 23, 2020 16:22:25 GMT -5
Yes in this propostion ALL character/personality is a defensive construction of the mind. Some caretakers are more tricky to defend against than others, and some minds are better at this construction than others. People may have some idea how tricky are the people they deal with in thier lives, and the mind may be good at the defensive construction. Other minds may not be so good at it and the organism is left vunerable. Another way to look at it is that the default mode of human consciousness is a form of insanity that constantly demands validation of the illusion of existential separation. True enough that anyone presenting the appearance of successfully navigating and coping in this world is manifesting an appearance of something that can reasonably be characterized as ego. But you see, the "necessity" of this .. that's a matter of perspective.
|
|
|
Post by amit on Mar 24, 2020 5:41:05 GMT -5
Yes in this propostion ALL character/personality is a defensive construction of the mind. Some caretakers are more tricky to defend against than others, and some minds are better at this construction than others. People may have some idea how tricky are the people they deal with in thier lives, and the mind may be good at the defensive construction. Other minds may not be so good at it and the organism is left vunerable. Another way to look at it is that the default mode of human consciousness is a form of insanity that constantly demands validation of the illusion of existential separation. True enough that anyone presenting the appearance of successfully navigating and coping in this world is manifesting an appearance of something that can reasonably be characterized as ego. But you see, the "necessity" of this .. that's a matter of perspective. Most describe themselves as having a character/personality. This indicates that there is a widespread need for this defence.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 24, 2020 6:36:38 GMT -5
Another way to look at it is that the default mode of human consciousness is a form of insanity that constantly demands validation of the illusion of existential separation. True enough that anyone presenting the appearance of successfully navigating and coping in this world is manifesting an appearance of something that can reasonably be characterized as ego. But you see, the "necessity" of this .. that's a matter of perspective. Most describe themselves as having a character/personality. This indicates that there is a widespread need for this defence. Right, well, it's actually ambiguous what someone means by "I have a character/personality". But it does seem to me that the most common version is existentially benighted. And even besides that, regardless of whether someone has realized the existential truth, the matter of degree to which they're attached to their notion of personality - or even to the deeper, underlying subconscious thought .. "I am this body" - that matter of degree can vary quite a bit. But here again, it seems to me that most people aren't even aware of the dichotomy -- they don't even have an inch of psychological space in between their form-based image of themselves, on one hand, and their sense of being, on the other. Now, all that said, still, noone actually "needs" that ego. Certainly, it can seem that way, and sure, it might seem that way either from the inside looking out or the outside looking in. For instance, I'm sure you can come up with any number of hypothetical's in which I'd agree that "ego seemed necessary". But that's the thing: it's only ever really a matter of perspective.
|
|
|
Post by amit on Mar 24, 2020 8:54:10 GMT -5
Most describe themselves as having a character/personality. This indicates that there is a widespread need for this defence. Right, well, it's actually ambiguous what someone means by "I have a character/personality". But it does seem to me that the most common version is existentially benighted. And even besides that, regardless of whether someone has realized the existential truth, the matter of degree to which they're attached to their notion of personality - or even to the deeper, underlying subconscious thought .. "I am this body" - that matter of degree can vary quite a bit. But here again, it seems to me that most people aren't even aware of the dichotomy -- they don't even have an inch of psychological space in between their form-based image of themselves, on one hand, and their sense of being, on the other. Now, all that said, still, noone actually "needs" that ego. Certainly, it can seem that way, and sure, it might seem that way either from the inside looking out or the outside looking in. For instance, I'm sure you can come up with any number of hypothetical's in which I'd agree that "ego seemed necessary". But that's the thing: it's only ever really a matter of perspective. Its a felt thing. Most are happy to say "This is what I am like" with no awareness that that may well be a defence that needs to be overcome. This need seems to only arise in spiritual circles about a more limited view of Ego (dogmatism) without realizing that Ego is the whole character/personality.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 24, 2020 9:19:53 GMT -5
Right, well, it's actually ambiguous what someone means by "I have a character/personality". But it does seem to me that the most common version is existentially benighted. And even besides that, regardless of whether someone has realized the existential truth, the matter of degree to which they're attached to their notion of personality - or even to the deeper, underlying subconscious thought .. "I am this body" - that matter of degree can vary quite a bit. But here again, it seems to me that most people aren't even aware of the dichotomy -- they don't even have an inch of psychological space in between their form-based image of themselves, on one hand, and their sense of being, on the other. Now, all that said, still, noone actually "needs" that ego. Certainly, it can seem that way, and sure, it might seem that way either from the inside looking out or the outside looking in. For instance, I'm sure you can come up with any number of hypothetical's in which I'd agree that "ego seemed necessary". But that's the thing: it's only ever really a matter of perspective. Its a felt thing. Most are happy to say "This is what I am like" with no awareness that that may well be a defence that needs to be overcome. This need seems to only arise in spiritual circles about a more limited view of Ego (dogmatism) without realizing that Ego is the whole character/personality. Well, as far as that goes, certainly it's only ever ego in disguise that would attempt to eradicate, erode or otherwise make an enemy of ego. Anyone with any genuine curiosity about becoming whole eventually has to confront the question: where do "I" stop, and the "world" begins?
|
|
|
Post by amit on Mar 24, 2020 12:34:49 GMT -5
Its a felt thing. Most are happy to say "This is what I am like" with no awareness that that may well be a defence that needs to be overcome. This need seems to only arise in spiritual circles about a more limited view of Ego (dogmatism) without realizing that Ego is the whole character/personality. Well, as far as that goes, certainly it's only ever ego in disguise that would attempt to eradicate, erode or otherwise make an enemy of ego. Anyone with any genuine curiosity about becoming whole eventually has to confront the question: where do "I" stop, and the "world" begins? Yes what remains after Ego is no more. Most nonduality would answer 'noone'. How that might present itself is in the many gurus who would have it that there is noone there anymore. But who can tell, may just be the ultimate defence with mind sitting behind in a deckchair on the beach with a big fat cigar:)
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 25, 2020 9:21:50 GMT -5
Well, as far as that goes, certainly it's only ever ego in disguise that would attempt to eradicate, erode or otherwise make an enemy of ego. Anyone with any genuine curiosity about becoming whole eventually has to confront the question: where do "I" stop, and the "world" begins? Yes what remains after Ego is no more. Most nonduality would answer 'noone'. How that might present itself is in the many gurus who would have it that there is noone there anymore. But who can tell, may just be the ultimate defence with mind sitting behind in a deckchair on the beach with a big fat cigar:) Self-deception will always be a thing .. .. and there's no shortage of stories about misbehaving guru's. But then again, there are many who at least seem to me to walk their talk pretty well. And even for the one's that don't, all that eventually leaves one with is the question of message/messenger, which strikes me as ultimately the same as a Zen koan.
|
|
|
Post by amit on Mar 25, 2020 11:56:23 GMT -5
Yes what remains after Ego is no more. Most nonduality would answer 'noone'. How that might present itself is in the many gurus who would have it that there is noone there anymore. But who can tell, may just be the ultimate defence with mind sitting behind in a deckchair on the beach with a big fat cigar:) Self-deception will always be a thing .. .. and there's no shortage of stories about misbehaving guru's. But then again, there are many who at least seem to me to walk their talk pretty well. And even for the one's that don't, all that eventually leaves one with is the question of message/messenger, which strikes me as ultimately the same as a Zen koan. If All is One is accepted as the only reality, I see no reason to elimnate Ego for wholeness purposes, for Ego is simply Oneness Egoing so no loss of wholeness at all. There must be some other reason for this preoccupation which escapes me. Do you know what it is? Maybe it is simply that Oneness is not accepted as the only reality.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 25, 2020 12:40:18 GMT -5
Self-deception will always be a thing .. .. and there's no shortage of stories about misbehaving guru's. But then again, there are many who at least seem to me to walk their talk pretty well. And even for the one's that don't, all that eventually leaves one with is the question of message/messenger, which strikes me as ultimately the same as a Zen koan. If All is One is accepted as the only reality, I see no reason to elimnate Ego for wholeness purposes, for Ego is simply Oneness Egoing so no loss of wholeness at all. There must be some other reason for this preoccupation which escapes me. Do you know what it is? Maybe it is simply that Oneness is not accepted as the only reality. To state the obvious, ego is a word with many different possible meanings, and different people use different concepts for different reasons. Perhaps less obvious is that sometimes these uses are even for apparently contradicting purposes, depending on context. It's certainly possible to use the notion of the elimination of ego as a valid existential pointer, and to do that in such a way as not to contradict the pointer of nonduality.
|
|