Ego reactions on discussion boards

More about ego reactions....

One way the ego reacts, and which is easily overlooked, is in the privacy of one's own mind. When outwardly we may avoid the reaction, often it continues unchecked in our thoughts. "That jerk, how dare he!" and so on. And me make up stories about him or her or them. We assign labels and definitions to them. We reduce the humanity that they are, the precious spirit there, into some narrowly defined caricature that is then seen as worthy of our ridicule and debasement.

And by our own hand, what we see in another becomes the filter through which we know ourselves. It is often unrecognized that when we see "that one" as less than, so do we fear this in ourselves. And this fear acts to undermine our sense of Self and robs us of precious energy, which we then must attempt to steal from another to replenish ourselves (often through various forms of attack).

Those that are ready and truly wish to be done with this constant battle of attack/defense and the energy wars that people engage in, must look within and follow the reaction to its core, which is always within. And all the manifestations of it must be unearthed and brought to the light of awareness... overt and covert alike.

 

Do you reject absolutely, then, the possibility that the other is "less than", and that we can ever be right or even justifiable in judgment?

 

Actually to this I can answer with an emphatic YES. And I can tell you too that this is sometimes very difficult to put into practice... but I'm working on it. I'm not to the point where this is an instinctive response every time. But that's OK... I accept that sometimes the first response is a reaction (judgment) but then the awareness will come in soon after and review this and correct it. In a way you could say that I always judge, but ultimately the judgment always ends up as "He is innocent".

I must add something too... it's incredible how deeply fulfilling and joyful it feels when the reaction drops away and the realization of this innocense sets in. The love just flows in great abundance. It's truly a miracle. So what if it takes a bit of time sometimes to realize this? It's worth it!!

P.S. This is the meaning of forgiveness.

 

I don't. I think you do the innocent a great disservice if you declare that guilt is impossible. Regardless of how ego-less they might be, does a guiltless person not deserve some elevation above the guilty? Is it not disheartening for the faultless to be regarded alongside the faulted as equals?

I'm sure you love judging everyone innocent, but I doubt that you are right to do so. Some ARE less guilty than others. Why is that so hard to see?

 

I guess I just see things differently.

 

But you don't want to talk about that?

 

I don't know that there's much to talk about. I could share what I see, but I'm really not interested in debating the right and wrong of it.

What I see is that some people are disconnected with the essence of who they really are, which is Life itself. They are entirely identified with their form, with the forms of this world, and find themselves separate from everyone else. So then they have to enter into a battle for survival, where some people are seen as alies and others as enemies. This is a very deeply rooted dynamic and results in people doing some rather unloving things. But this is simply due to lack of awareness about who they are and their inherent connection to and sameness with everyone around them.

Are they guilty for this? No, they're simply unconscious. It's not a personal fault of theirs. In that regard consciousness is not a personal achievement either. But it is what it is. When I recognize that everyone is innocent, this is simply the awareness of WHO they really are beneath the surface and also realizing that the surface "reality" isn't that important or significant. We are all the same Life Essence, expressing itself in various ways, through various focal points and forms. It's the sameness that's important... not the differences. So in remembering this I can overlook the surface stuff. And in seeing clearly the beauty of the soul beneath the outer form, I become aware of the innocense, absolutely.

 

Does desire to dispel the ego perpetuate it's survival?

 

In a sense, yes, in another sense no. And I'll explain what I mean.

We all have a sort of homing beacon, a mechanism within us that always calls for a return to Oneness, a return to a full awareness of our True nature. So from one perspective it could be said that the desire to dispel the ego is really the sense of being fed up with illusions, reactions, separation and full imersion in the world of form, while at the same time having an irresistible pull toward awakening. This kind of desire lives on a deeper level within us, and it's a drive toward cohesion not toward separation.

And yet the ego can get a hold of this deeper desire and twist and warp it into reinforcing itself. And the way it does this is to dilude you into thinking that you must resist the ego mechanism and look for your salvation in some future moment when you'll be "free of the ego". This is a big trap and one that many spiritual seekers fall into.

Instead we can recognize that, yes, there's a strong inner pull toward love, peace and sanity... this is our Spirit calling us. And at the same time we can acknowledge the ego mechanism but not resist it. We can allow it to be as it is, recognizing the difference between it and our Essence, and realizing that it is not really that important. The key lies in recognition of it and the distinction between it and I. There's no reason to resist it... in fact resisting it will reinforce the energy and keep it from dissipating naturally, because the very ENERGY OF RESISTANCE IS part of the ego state. Shining the light of truth onto any illusions is what will deepen our awareness of Self and dismantle the hold of the ego.

 

I basically said that it would be irrational for me to assert that one is merely projecting one's own flaws whenever someone suggests that I might have flaws. While it may be true some of the time, the fact that I consider them to be projecting their flaws requires that flaws must exist. So, by default, it is possible to have flaws that are not merely projections; there has to be an origin. And so, I must be willing to accept at least the possibility that a critic of my personality might actually be right.

I don't see how someone can believe that others are projecting their flaws onto them, yet not acknowledge that it's possible that anyone (and thus they) can have said flaws. Flaws must exist in order that they might be projected.

"Guilt" was perhaps an ill-chosen word on my part, although you are clearly intelligent enough to realise that. If you honestly misinterpreted it, fair enough, but if you didn't, you are basically saying that no-one can ever have done what they are accused of, or be what they are accused of being. If the ideal state for you is that we should all be innocent of doing or being anything, well, I don't get you. What's the appeal of people who are neutral and inert, either on a personal or objective level?

I get that you're not interested in debating the right and wrong, but you seem remarkably loathe to even elaborate on a position or a belief. This is a forum after all, not a diary.

 

You talk about the ego as if it's a parasite, a thing to be expelled, rather than merely managed. Is this what you believe?

 

I understand what you're saying. There is such a thing as making errors and I think this is what you refer to when you speak of flaws. Do errors exist? Yes, in this world in which we find ourselves people make errors all the time. How "true" are they in the ultimate sense? They're not. Errors are a temporary phenomena, and only when seen within the framework of duality. Flaws only exist on the suface level of form. When we're identified with this suface level then we think we (and others) are flawed. But deeper within we are Life Essence itself, and in this there are no flaws. As we go deeper within we all converge into the same Essence. Even from a certain perspective you could say that this world of form, unconsciousness, and the manifestation of error, are all a necessary part of Self discovery.

Other people are often mirrors for us. In a sense you could say that there really is no "other"... it's always Self appearing in many forms. There are certain aspects of ourselves that we deny and because we deny them we must cast them out, so to speak. But we are unconscious of doing this and this is where projection comes in. We see in others what we refuse to acknowledge within. We split ourselves into many parts because of our rejection, and so the mirror cracks into many dissociated and separate parts. And the only way we can become whole again is to have those parts return to us through the mirroring of "other people", to give us the opportunity to reintegrate, accept, and forgive.

Seeing error "out there in others" is tricky, because often we see things not out of clarity but out of tinted glasses of our own unconsciousness. Criticising errors is prone to even more layers of error-making... like the blind leading the blind and furthering the idea of separation. The more awake and aware we become the more we can recognize error in the correct light and not confuse what's really going on there. And in our clarity we can overlook error and see the Whole Being there, beneath the suface, and see ourselves in that One as the same Essential Self. And from this perspective we can address error practically and helpfully.

Someone who is seeing the Truth of you can point out an error gently and not enter into a confusion between it and You, for there is a difference. And on some level you would sense yourself through their clear eyes and become more clear yourself. This is how enlightened masters awaken us, by holding the light of clarity and truth and shining it into the mind of another. Often it's a simple energy exchange and words aren't always required or necessary for this.

There's a difference between being and doing. On the surface people can be "guilty of doing"... meaning they made an error in some way. This, however, does not speak of GUILT OF BEING, as in some kind of essential flaw. People often make the mistake of equating doing with being. We may act unconsciously but that doesn't mean that unconsciousness is all that we are. Unconsciousness is a temporary superficial state.

There's really no such thing as being neutral. We're either the channels of consciousness or unconsciousness. There is nothing personal going on here, nothing of "me or mine". “I am a hole in a flute that the Christ’s breath moves through - listen to this music.” -Hafiz

I wouldn't say I'm loathe to it... a better explanation would be CAREFUL. Words are very limited. Words can be pointers at best but I can't express the fullness of Truth with them, no matter how skillfully I construct the replies. I practice inner listening and if inspiration flows then I share what is wanting to be expressed. Sometimes (often) discussing isn't helpful. Sometimes I make errors also, because my listening skills haven't been perfected and there's still a "me" lurking in there somewhere on occasion. Sometimes the one for whom the communication would flow is not really open to receive it, but doesn't realize this. And so the mind says "wait a minute why aren't you explaining this more?" but the Spirit knows better than to continue, because it's no longer constructive.

My deepest desire is to obey this inner calling, and then get the hell out of the way of it.

 

The way that I explain the ego is that it's the state of identification with an appearance, a form, a thing, a thought, an emotion, a philosophy, a belief, an attitude, a mental construct of some sort. Life Essence shows up as something. It appears as a form. Do we just see the form? Or do we recognize the One Life there? Do we know ourselves AS that One Life or do we think that we're a body living in a world of bodies, having things?

The One Life incarnates as a "baby". It's given a name. It's taught ideas. It begins to acquire things. It identifies with certain beliefs. What is temporary and what is eternal? The One Life is eternal. Everything else... temporary.

When we forget who we really are, the One Life, then we identify with the temporal, the surface level of form. This is ego. Ego is not form. Ego is IDENTIFICATION with form. Is it a parasite? In a sense, yes. In another sense, it's an illusion, a false self, a limited self. One could even say it's an energy form created out of our unconsciousness. And like any energy forms, it wants to survive and maintain itself.

Can we "manage" an illusion? Well, not really. We're either acting out the ego (identification with form) or we're awake to the truth of our Being. So at any moment we're either awake or asleep. Recognizing the ego at work is already an element of wakefulness. The rest has to do with becoming aware of all the conditioning. The conditioning of the ego-state has a certain momentum to it. But with awareness it loses its vitality and eventually ceases operating altogether.

Then we can allow the forms of this world to be there, without losing ourselves in them. This is what Christ referred to when he spoke of being in this world but not being of it.

 

Not really. A flaw is a trait we don't like, or a trait which causes a person discomfort or difficulty, perhaps. OK, there is some requirement in regarding a trait as a flaw that we think we know what is good for us - maybe someone likes being shy, for example - but that would not make the fact that we base our judgement upon untrue, just our interpretation of it.

I'll level with you: I think you give the "enlightened masters" too much credit. I don't think it takes much enlightenment to do this. But that's because I consider inability to read criticism of oneself as a flaw or error too. It is easy to hate the critic, but whose to say he's wrong just because we hate him?

Communication is a two-way process, and one cannot be held entirely to blame if one is not understood. Sometimes we express ourselves poorly; sometimes we express ourselves adequately, but to those who read us very selectively. There are those who take any criticism, any judgment, as a sign of attack, not because of the content, but simply because they are insecure. So they will declare it "projection" rather than admit that they may have flaws. This may not be their own fault - people are led to believe that they need to be perfect, and some would rather deny that they have any shortcomings to others than accept and reason them themselves.

Well, pick and choose: are we in the act of being, or the condition of doing? I would say that being is at least on some level something we do; we are self-aware, and as such, our personality, our instincts, our self, is subject to our will. In other words, we are not merely a bundle of responses; we have the capacity to self-observe, self-affirm, self-improve, should we wish to.

This is why I said "guilt" was an ill-chosen word. What I say "guilt", I simply mean that what one person has said about another is true, rather than a projection. So if person A says person B struggles to express themself, or does not take criticism well, these are not crimes, but if they are true of person B, then in this vocabulary person B would be "guilty" of those things, rather than "innocent".

The implication of the projection diagnosis, when applied over-liberally, without prior knowledge, or indiscriminately, would be paradoxical. Person B, rather than simply state that person A is wrong, or right, or go into why or why not, turns the criticism against Person A. Why do it? Well, maybe they are projecting. But can we assume that all of our perceived flaws are merely the projections of flaws (which we perceive?) in others? Wouldn't that assume a universe with us at the centre?

The alternative "theory" available is simply that some criticisms may be valid, and that even if someone's experiences do shape how they see you, their opinion need not be entirely and unanimously disregarded on this basis; after all, it'd be true of us too. I don't see any paradoxes in that. I'd rather take any judgement on board with a pinch of salt, if the alternative is to assume everyone else is both wrong and lying to themselves. Not saying that's your own position, but it does seem to be one you're defending rather vigorously.

This isn't to say that I don't believe in "projection". I just dislike the use of its name and function erroneously, as a means merely to simply deflect any criticism. We're smart organisms and all, but I think we need at least some "feedback" from beyond our self to know that we're doing right or wrong, good or bad. Otherwise there's room for us to just do what we want, whatever gets our endorphins flowing, and hurt or disregard others. Instead, we do something, and by the reaction to it, we know whether it's good or bad. The way we react to it can, should be a factor, but I believe that the ability to deflect any critique with the grand ol' "I know you are but what am I?" school of thought has the potential to alienate us dramatically from others, and certainly from social interaction.

 

Not everything can be said or encompassed with just words though.

As you read this, you already have a preconceived understanding of the words that I am using. I'm not implanting anything into you. Rather, I'm just invoking what is already there, to get you to follow the train of thought that I've already established in my own head and wish to convey to you. This is how we communicate with words.

But, like I said, not everything can be said with words. You can't always just simply say what you mean when there is no way for you to strictly say it. This is why we use metaphors and other language embellishments. The feelings and associations we feel are easier to try and invoke in another if you use colorful language and try to appeal to the senses. Understanding this, it really isn't that ridiculous to try to communicate to someone "inbetween the lines", particularly when trying to deliver some sort of spiritual or metaphysical message, which by nature, can only be felt and not told.

 

It's been argued (wish I could remember who by though) that we think in language, rather than thinking freely and merely expressing our thoughts through language. In other words, if not everything can be encompassed with just words, we're fucked; we won't be able to understand the thing until we invent words for it, and we won't be able to do that meaningfully without at least some understanding of the thing to root those words in.

You're halfway there. You as the writer interpret the words as well. As an example, the word "red" can conjure something different in your mind than it does in mine. Specificity and careful attention to nuance can override this to some extent, but there's still that problem of interpretation.

That's only a problem if we demand precise expression though. If we are willing to admit we may have misunderstood what we've read, or at the very least that we may all read the same thing differently, we can get on with trying to work together in communicating.

That's hard in forum format though, because we write in big chunks. In conversation, you'd seldom talk for the equivalent of five paragraphs without at least hoping for some nod or sound or expression of recognition, of understanding, from your audience. Here, we don't know whether we're talking shit until we get a response!

I agree absolutely, but at the same time, I think some users (and I'll say now, I think bluesafire is among them, though by no means the worst offender) either go out of their way to script their responses such that anyone can read what they want out of them, using ambiguous words not out of necessity but from a lack of spine; or would simply benefit from expanding their vocabulary a bit. I know that there very likely are things that we lack words for. But there's a lot of things that we don't lack words for. Study and research tend to be demonised by those who look for answers within, but they can at the very least help us to express our findings.


EDIT: I don't know, maybe I actually am alone in this, but I hope I'm not the only one that gets a little sick of some of the stock responses that get trotted out in this and other philosophy forums under the guise of mystical or enlightened thought. "Wow, everything's a paradox, is it? Everything is both something and nothing? Gosh. That tells me a lot." It's just filler, fluff, and if it happens to be quoted from the Upanishads or the Jyotisha or whatever then it's recycled fluff.

 

I dont agree with this, since thought predates language, and does not require language to operate.

I think study and research are very useful. I'm introspective by nature and rely on intuition a lot during my day to day life, but the rational mind is an exceptional tool altogether, and it very valuable for dispelling a lot of the illusions and downright tall tales that people have come up with over the ages. I think people demonize the objectivity of study and research because often, said researchers begin to identify themselves with the rational mind, and try to maintain some sort of objective identity. This sort of existence, of course, is a lie, and serves only to limit the individual that seeks to maintain such an existence.

I agree that most of the information on this board is second-hand. But, if we are to consider this, one could argue that everything about us is nothing more than second-hand biproducts, entirely formed by the world around us. To me, it really makes no difference whether what the people type here have thought it all up themselves or not. The difference between second-hand knowledge and primary knowledge is distinct, but what remains the common factor between them is that they both still represent knowledge.

 

You could also say it's second hand only if you don't apply it. Just talking about something hypothetically is very limited and limiting in its helpfulness.

 

I think what he meant was that most of the posters pass on the knowledge without even understanding it themselves.

 

I'm pretty sure there's a fair amount of debate on that even now, but animals would seem more vocal than thoughtful. I'd say that language, the desire for communication and the will to establish some matrix in order to achieve it, would represent the point in Man's evolution at which he can truly say that he is no longer animal.

That's as maybe, but I don't think there's anything to be said for rejecting study. Objectivity is something we should be able to tap into, but I'd definitely say that, if we devote ourselves to it, we become machines for learning, and forget why we wanted to find out what we glean from study.

My concern though is that people are quick to take an easy one-size-fits-all answer - that it's all a paradox, that God is unknowable, that x cannot be disproven so let's believe it, etc. - that circumvents any need to look into whether life's great mysteries are mysteries at all. I read recently some writing on the astrological significance of certain metals. This was as part of research into symbology, and from that perspective it was quite interesting. But the article made a number of claims - the usual stuff you get from new age sources about how "scientists are baffled by" [insert something scientists haven't been baffled by since about 1805]. Particularly, it described the moon as "elusive", and that it remained a mystery to scientists.

This is my gripe, really. I'm not going to claim that we know everything or that anything is truly knowable. But I do feel there's something to be gained in knowing what we (as a species) know and don't know. Some of our "big questions" have, if not been answered, then at least whittled down to a small number of possibilities.

I think you misunderstand me here. I don't have a problem with anyone citing sources. I just think people should cite sources that they agree with, rather than agree with sources because they have been cited. A 5000-year old text could be as wrong now as it was then, for example .

My problem was more with received wisdom. I'd rather someone thought about something, either independently or with the help of a secondary source, and came to a conclusion through that process, rather than simply be told an answer and trot it out. I might be misreading it, but it does seem that, if someone can't elaborate on a point, it's not really theirs to make.

There is a third state, between primary and secondhand, where rather than deriving from a specific source, an idea is made all-pervasive, by media proliferation. Our visual and audio field is saturated with images pointing to ideas, and they lead us to a pre-constructed idea of reality. I do not believe that it is impossible to break out of though; it is more that, if we do not think about something, we will "default" to the "third" mindset. It is what Barthes refers to as "the interrogation of the falsely obvious" - the need to examine things for ourselves, to establish whether they really are as we have been led to believe. It is as you've said before, but sometimes the lie does not have an obvious source; it doesn't say it anywhere, it says it EVERYWHERE.

It's not without its faults - how do we decide what is falsely obvious, rather than legitimately so? - but it's something I believe in.