Overcoming the Ego

[Cory Duchesne]

An ego, fundamentally, is an observer(or experiencer) who enjoys some aspects of experience, while suffering in response to other aspects of experience. A person may enjoy waking up in a warm, comfy bed, making a tasty breakfast, and hence suffer in reaction to trying to fall asleep in freezing, hard conditions with little choice in food. A father may enjoy the prospect of his son becoming a Doctor, and suffer in reaction to hearing his son express interest in being a truck driver or plumber. A son may enjoy pleasing his father, and suffer in reaction to displeasing his father. A person may enjoy being in the company of a friendly, energetic, humorous fellow - and hence may suffer in reaction to being in the company of a depressed, dull fellow.

To be egoless is to no longer experience psychological enjoyment and suffering. As an egoless observer, one meets experience impartially, not liking one aspect more than another. That doesn't mean one is 'indifferent'. On the contrary, one is very specific in terms of how one speaks and acts, given that one's actions are either going to be relatively more pleasing or depressing to the ego's one is choicelessly in relationship to.

Does all of this sound about right?

That being said, unless you're actually out there living homeless in a barrel, dumpster diving, and have cut off all social ties, I think you are a far cry from ever achieving egolessness. Even someone like Diogenes appears egotistical, given he enjoys the simple pleasure of sunning himself. A 'strong ego' is ideal. To me, Diogones represent a strong, calloused ego, as a opposed to no ego. A weak ego, is one that is very sensitive to likes and dislikes, easily depressed and elated.

I often can't help but think that complete egolessness is just a mirage born out of a salvationist mind set.

Regardless, whether egolessness is possible or not is not something we can be certain about, can we? What does seem apparent, is the possibility of greater egotistical strength which comes from voluntarily exposing oneself to unpleasant experiences, diffusing whatever fear and depression one would naturally yield to if one was comforted by the opposite.

[samadhi]

Cory,

An ego, fundamentally, is an observer(or experiencer) who enjoys some aspects of experience, while suffering in response to other aspects of experience. A person may enjoy waking up in a warm, comfy bed, making a tasty breakfast, and hence suffer in reaction to trying to fall asleep in freezing, hard conditions with little choice in food. A father may enjoy the prospect of his son becoming a Doctor, and suffer in reaction to hearing his son express interest in being a truck driver or plumber. A son may enjoy pleasing his father, and suffer in reaction to displeasing his father. A person may enjoy being in the company of a friendly, energetic, humorous fellow - and hence may suffer in reaction to being in the company of a depressed, dull fellow.

You can describe the ego more simply as the identification of the perceiver with its perceptions.

To be egoless is to no longer experience psychological enjoyment and suffering. As an egoless observer, one meets experience impartially, not liking one aspect more than another. That doesn't mean one is 'indifferent'. On the contrary, one is very specific in terms of how one speaks and acts, given that one's actions are either going to be relatively more pleasing or depressing to the ego's one is choicelessly in relationship to.

Does all of this sound about right?

I don’t see egolessness as requiring a lack of enjoyment or positing a lack of discomfort. Suffering however is about a judgment, that what is happening shouldn't be. Resistance to what is is what suffering is about. I'm not sure what your "on the contrary" statement is getting at. I would say however that one's actions as an ego flow from ideas of personal regard of what is better or worse whereas the actions of someone without ego would not be based on personal gain or loss.

That being said, unless you're actually out there living homeless in a barrel, dumpster diving, and have cut off all social ties, I think you are a far cry from ever achieving egolessness.

You are equating egolessness with personal circumstances. I don't think that is the case.

Even someone like Diogenes appears egotistical, given he enjoys the simple pleasure of sunning himself.

The ability to enjoy is not based on one's identity as an ego.

A 'strong ego' is ideal. To me, Diogones represent a strong, calloused ego, as a opposed to no ego. A weak ego, is one that is very sensitive to likes and dislikes. Such an ego is easily depressed and elated.

A strong ego to me is one given to little reflection. Everything is simply about personal desires. In that sense Diogones would not be a good candidate but perhaps Stalin would. Weakness in the sense you describe is about sensitivity. Poets can be sensitive but their expression could hardly be called weak.

I often can't help but think that complete egolessness is just a mirage born out of a salvationist mind set.

The mirage is imagining there is something to be done to "achieve" it. Egolessness is not an achievement because it is not something the ego can do. "I want to be egoless" is an expression of ego. "You" don't get there, there is no "you" there.

Regardless, whether egolessness is possible or not is not something we can be certain about, can we?

No. It is the ego that seeks certainty anyway so certainty in this case wouldn't help a bit.

What does seem apparent, is the possibility of greater egotistical strength which comes from voluntarily exposing oneself to unpleasant experiences, diffusing whatever fear and depression one would naturally yield to if one was comforted by the opposite.

Certainly there are ways for an ego to be more or less well-adjusted. Someone like Dr. Phil can help you there if that's what you're looking for.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Cory,

I agree that eliminating all one’s sensual preferences is moving in an extreme direction. For instance: If I had the choice between a hot green tea or hot water with no tea bag, I would choose the green tea every time, why? Because my taste buds have become accustomed to the flavor of green tea over hot water; However, these types of small sensual preferences do not indicate an attached deluded ego. They are very small and insignificant.

The main insight related to overcoming ego is whether or not I believe that I cause my own thinking or do I see that all thinking is caused by everything else happening in relationship to the observer. For instance: people who neurotically comment on the weather in small talk believe they are in control of their minds, they believe that there is an ‘I’ that chooses what to say, but they don’t understand that their thought patterns are just an adaptation, a way to circumvent the anxiety of not knowing how to properly socialize.

People fancy the illusion of believing that they are in control of all their habitual thought patterns, and over time these patterns give a false sense of security and complacency. So this is the 'ego' that needs to be ended. And as for the old solitary chap pouring himself a green tea in the corner, leave that old boy alone….

[Cory Duchesne]

You can describe the ego more simply as the identification of the perceiver with it's perceptions.

To me, that comes across as very vague.

Allow me to translate what you've said in other words:

Egotism is when the perceiver identifies his perceptions as belonging to him.

Is that what you meant?

[samadhi]

Cory,

me: You can describe the ego more simply as the identification of the perceiver with it's perceptions.

you: To me, that comes across as very vague.

Allow me to translate what you've said in other words:

Egotism is when the perceiver identifies his perceptions as belonging to him.

Is that what you meant?

Not quite. The ego is the belief that perceptions, body, mind, ARE him/her. In that way the ego comes into existence as a thing, a body, a mind. And bodies and minds require preservation, protection, enhancement. From there, the race is on.

[Cory Duchesne]

Samadhi,

I don’t see egolessness as requiring a lack of enjoyment or positing a lack of discomfort.

Well, there's two types of enjoyment/discomfort. Physical and Psychological. I do see egolessness as requiring a lack of psychological enjoyment and discomfort.

Suffering however is about a judgment, that what is happening shouldn't be.

What about a pin prick or sore back? Surely that's not based on a judgment. Such suffering occurs without judgment.

I'm not sure what your "on the contrary" statement is getting at.

Well, often people assume an egolessness state to be one of indifference. I think that perhaps the contrary is true.

I would say however that one's actions as an ego flow from ideas of personal regard of what is better or worse whereas the actions of someone without ego would not be based on personal gain or loss.

I think a person without an ego would continue to find it necessary to make judgments about the superiority or inferiority of a product or person.

That being said, unless you're actually out there living homeless in a barrel, dumpster diving, and have cut off all social ties, I think you are a far cry from ever achieving egolessness.

You are equating egolessness with personal circumstances. I don't think that is the case.

No, I'm equating egolessness with emotionlessness. I think certain circumstances preserve emotional (egotistical) activity.

Even someone like Diogenes appears egotistical, given he enjoys the simple pleasure of sunning himself.

The ability to enjoy is not based on one's identity as an ego.

I think there can be physical enjoyment without an ego, but when this physical enjoyment becomes a desired and anticipated thing, the seeds of psychological irritation (egotism) have been sown.

A strong ego to me is one given to little reflection.

In my view, a weak ego is one that is too fragile to reflect very honestly.

Weakness in the sense you describe is about sensitivity. Poets can be sensitive but their expression could hardly be called weak.

Poets are often very sentimental, shallow and sensual in their expressions. Not to mention useless. It takes a strong, focused ego to come up with scientific expressions that are actually useful. So useful in fact, that we can propel ourselves to the moon.

The mirage is imagining there is something to be done to "achieve" it. Egolessness is not an achievement because it is not something the ego can do. "I want to be egoless" is an expression of ego. "You" don't get there, there is no "you" there.

As a mere conclusion, that's all very fine and dandy, but if you're attachment to comfort remains unchallenged you'll find yourself irritated and suffering when you are deprived of what is essentially an addiction.

Regardless, whether egolessness is possible or not is not something we can be certain about, can we?

No. It is the ego that seeks certainty anyway so certainty in this case wouldn't help a bit.

The ego also finds comfort in uncertainty though, doesn't it?

---

[Cory Duchesne]

Cory,

me: You can describe the ego more simply as the identification of the perceiver with it's perceptions.

you: To me, that comes across as very vague.

Allow me to translate what you've said in other words:

Egotism is when the perceiver identifies his perceptions as belonging to him.

Is that what you meant?

Not quite. The ego is the belief that perceptions, body, mind, ARE him/her. In that way the ego comes into existence as a thing, a body, a mind. And bodies and minds require preservation, protection, enhancement. From there, the race is on.

But your definition doesn't address attachment, samsara. For instance, how do you account for when an ego becomes inflamed and inflated?

[samadhi]

Cory,

me: I don’t see egolessness as requiring a lack of enjoyment or positing a lack of discomfort.

you: Well, there's two types of enjoyment/discomfort. Physical and Psychological. I do see egolessness as requiring a lack of psychological enjoyment and discomfort.

Okay. However I don't equate enjoyment, psychological or otherwise, with attachment.

me: Suffering however is about a judgment, that what is happening shouldn't be.

you: What about a pin prick or sore back? Surely that's not based on a judgment. Such suffering occurs without judgment.

You are equating pain with suffering. I make a distinction, one is a physical sensation and the other is the resistance to it.

me: I'm not sure what your "on the contrary" statement is getting at.

you: Well, often people assume an egolessness state to be one of indifference. I think that perhaps the contrary is true.

I agree that one does not imply the other.

me: I would say however that one's actions as an ego flow from ideas of personal regard of what is better or worse whereas the actions of someone without ego would not be based on personal gain or loss.

you: I think a person without an ego would continue to find it necessary to make judgments about the superiority or inferiority of a product or person.

With regard to taking care of one's body, sure. But what I point to with gain and loss is the sense of personal achievement and failure. What does the egoless need to achieve on a personal level?

you: That being said, unless you're actually out there living homeless in a barrel, dumpster diving, and have cut off all social ties, I think you are a far cry from ever achieving egolessness.

me: You are equating egolessness with personal circumstances. I don't think that is the case.

you: No, I'm equating egolessness with emotionlessness. I think certain circumstances preserve emotional (egotistical) activity.

You have already said that egolessness does not imply indifference. Now you say it implies emotionlessness. What is the difference between being indifferent and being emotionless?

you: Even someone like Diogenes appears egotistical, given he enjoys the simple pleasure of sunning himself.

me: The ability to enjoy is not based on one's identity as an ego.

you: I think there can be physical enjoyment without an ego, but when this physical enjoyment becomes a desired and anticipated thing, the seeds of psychological irritation (egotism) have been sown.

Like I said, I don't equate enjoyment with attachment.

me: A strong ego to me is one given to little reflection.

you: In my view, a weak ego is one that is too fragile to reflect very honestly.

me: Weakness in the sense you describe is about sensitivity. Poets can be sensitive but their expression could hardly be called weak.

you: Poets are often very sentimental, shallow and sensual in their expressions. Not to mention useless. It takes a strong, focused ego to come up with scientific expressions that are actually useful. So useful in fact, that we can propel ourselves to the moon.

Useless depends on what you are interested in. Some poets can offer a great deal of insight. The Tao itself is poetry. I do not consider it the product of a weak ego.

me: The mirage is imagining there is something to be done to "achieve" it. Egolessness is not an achievement because it is not something the ego can do. "I want to be egoless" is an expression of ego. "You" don't get there, there is no "you" there.

you: As a mere conclusion, that's all very fine and dandy, but if you're attachment to comfort remains unchallenged you'll find yourself irritated and suffering when you are deprived of what is essentially an addiction.

If your objection is with attachment, fine. However that isn't what I was referring to above. To make egolessness a goal of the ego is a contradiction. The more you seek it, the faster it will recede.

you: Regardless, whether egolessness is possible or not is not something we can be certain about, can we?

me: No. It is the ego that seeks certainty anyway so certainty in this case wouldn't help a bit.

you: The ego also finds comfort in uncertainty though, doesn't it?

The ego can use anything for its purposes. The point I was making is that certainty will not buy you anything in the enlightenment game.

me: The ego is the belief that perceptions, body, mind, ARE him/her. In that way the ego comes into existence as a thing, a body, a mind. And bodies and minds require preservation, protection, enhancement. From there, the race is on.

you: But your definition doesn't address attachment, samsara. For instance, how do you account for when an ego becomes inflamed and inflated?

The ego is samsara itself, the identification with changing perceptions as a separate self. As for being inflated, what of it? Any perception that enhances it will do quite nicely. Or any perception that does the opposite. It doesn't much matter, as long as it can identify itself as SOMETHING.

[brokenhead]

John Lennon:

I've destroyed me ego.

Per Freud, the Ego is the result of the forces of the Id and the Superego together with input from the environment.

Is it something you can overcome?

[Cory Duchesne]

Samadhi,

Well, there's two types of enjoyment/discomfort. Physical and Psychological. I do see egolessness as requiring a lack of psychological enjoyment and discomfort.

Okay. However I don't equate enjoyment, psychological or otherwise, with attachment.

We disagree on that point then. Because I see psychological enjoyment as the seed of attachment. I think we are born attached to the psychological comfort of the womb.

you: What about a pin prick or sore back? Surely that's not based on a judgment. Such suffering occurs without judgment.

You are equating pain with suffering. I make a distinction, one is a physical sensation and the other is the resistance to it.

Ok, fair enough, but both the pain and the suffering you speak of here are entirely different from psychological suffering: boredom, anxiety, depression, anger, sorrow, etc.

you: I think a person without an ego would continue to find it necessary to make judgments about the superiority or inferiority of a product or person.

With regard to taking care of one's body, sure. But what I point to with gain and loss is the sense of personal achievement and failure. What does the egoless need to achieve on a personal level?

I agree that an egoless person would have no compulsion to achieve.

you: No, I'm equating egolessness with emotionlessness. I think certain circumstances preserve emotional (egotistical) activity.

You have already said that egolessness does not imply indifference. Now you say it implies emotionlessness. What is the difference between being indifferent and being emotionless?

Picture a robot designed to win at chess. The robot is not indifferent in regards to it's actions, in fact, it's very specific, yet no frustration, anger or sorrow occurs.

you: Poets are often very sentimental, shallow and sensual in their expressions. Not to mention useless. It takes a strong, focused ego to come up with scientific expressions that are actually useful. So useful in fact, that we can propel ourselves to the moon.

Useless depends on what you are interested in. Some poets can offer a great deal of insight. The Tao itself is poetry. I do not consider it the product of a weak ego.

Ok, I agree that wisdom poetry can be very insightful.

The ego can use anything for its purposes. The point I was making is that certainty will not buy you anything in the enlightenment game.

You sound awfully certain about that. :)

you: But your definition doesn't address attachment, samsara. For instance, how do you account for when an ego becomes inflamed and inflated?

The ego is samsara itself, the identification with changing perceptions as a separate self.

I don't see the ego as some independent thing. I see it's existence as dependent on the emotions, thoughts, environmental stimuli, etc.

[Cory Duchesne]

John Lennon:

I've destroyed me ego.

Per Freud, the Ego is the result of the forces of the Id and the Superego together with input from the environment.

Is it something you can overcome?

Perhaps it is insofar as you overcome identifying merely with your physical body and the voice inside your head.

[brokenhead]

Perhaps it is insofar as you overcome identifying merely with your physical body and the voice inside your head.

Isn't that what an Ego is? That which overcomes, or comes out of. No matter how hard you struggle, or if you choose to cease struggling, it's still called the Ego. The question is, is it identical with the Will?

[David Quinn]

I don't equate enjoyment, psychological or otherwise, with attachment.

If you give me an example of such an enjoyment, I will show you how it is tied up with attachment and ego.

-

[daybrown]

Why would a sage who has lost his ego, care about whether we know that?

[Dan Rowden]

Why would you imply a necessary relationship between ego and "caring" about something?

[samadhi]

Cory,

you: Well, there's two types of enjoyment/discomfort. Physical and Psychological. I do see egolessness as requiring a lack of psychological enjoyment and discomfort.

me: Okay. However I don't equate enjoyment, psychological or otherwise, with attachment.

you: We disagree on that point then. Because I see psychological enjoyment as the seed of attachment. I think we are born attached to the psychological comfort of the womb.

Look at your own experience. I'm sure there are some things you enjoy without an attachment. A good joke, for instance.

you: What about a pin prick or sore back? Surely that's not based on a judgment. Such suffering occurs without judgment.

me: You are equating pain with suffering. I make a distinction, one is a physical sensation and the other is the resistance to it.

you: Ok, fair enough, but both the pain and the suffering you speak of here are entirely different from psychological suffering: boredom, anxiety, depression, anger, sorrow, etc.

Are you asking whether you can have anxiety, etc. without suffering from it? Anxiety itself is about resistance to what is.

you: No, I'm equating egolessness with emotionlessness. I think certain circumstances preserve emotional (egotistical) activity.

me: You have already said that egolessness does not imply indifference. Now you say it implies emotionlessness. What is the difference between being indifferent and being emotionless?

you: Picture a robot designed to win at chess. The robot is not indifferent in regards to it's actions, in fact, it's very specific, yet no frustration, anger or sorrow occurs.

I think you're trying to split hairs on this one. And a robot would certainly would be indifferent to any outcome as well as its own actions. It wouldn't even be aware of them in fact.

me: The ego can use anything for its purposes. The point I was making is that certainty will not buy you anything in the enlightenment game.

you: You sound awfully certain about that. :)

Yeah, egos can be certain. It doesn't help them be egoless however.

you: But your definition doesn't address attachment, samsara. For instance, how do you account for when an ego becomes inflamed and inflated?

me: The ego is samsara itself, the identification with changing perceptions as a separate self.

you: I don't see the ego as some independent thing. I see it's existence as dependent on the emotions, thoughts, environmental stimuli, etc.

Sure, just a thought that says, "this is what I am."

[samadhi]

I don't equate enjoyment, psychological or otherwise, with attachment.

If you give me an example of such an enjoyment, I will show you how it is tied up with attachment and ego.

-

Okay, how about laughter? Do you enjoy yourself when you laugh? Are you attached to laughing?

[David Quinn]

I don't equate enjoyment, psychological or otherwise, with attachment.

If you give me an example of such an enjoyment, I will show you how it is tied up with attachment and ego.

Okay, how about laughter? Do you enjoy yourself when you laugh? Are you attached to laughing?

We've recently discussed this issue on another thread, so I will direct you there - Query on A=A.

Some comments of mine made on that thread:

Laughter is essentially the expression of pleasure and relief involved in throwing off oppression. The ego suddenly becomes delirious with an increase of power.

If a frail, old lady slips on a banana skin, it doesn't seem very amusing. But if it is a president trying to rule our lives with an iron-fist who slips, it is uproariously funny.

All humour conforms to this dynamic, at root.

Intellectual humour works along similar lines, although in this case the oppressors are words, ideas and world-views. When a person suddenly sees through a false idea or world-view, laughter is the natural response. The greater the oppression exerted by the idea or world-view in question, the greater the laughter in overcoming it.

Spontaneous, unexpected events can also make us laugh - for the same reason. In this case, the oppression comes from the drudgery of one's routine life. A sudden breaking of this routine, via an unexpected event, almost invariably produces a euphoric high. Unless, of course, the unexpected event is perceived as a threat.

Since humour is essentially the overcoming of oppression, if one wants to retain a humour-filled life then it means having to remain oppressed by things. The attachment to humour cannot help but lead to a slavish mentality. A lot of people like to remain small and oppressed because it enables them to laugh at things with their friends. For them, this is the best kind of life imaginable.

I sometimes describe philosophy/Zen as the greatest humour of all because it seeks to overcome all oppression permanently. It seeks to overcome those deepest, most powerful delusions which imprison almost everyone without them even knowing it. In a metaphorical sense, the enlightened person is so free of oppression he able to laugh at life and death in the face without a care in the world.

In the beginning stages of the Zen path, there is a lot of humour and laughter. The developing individual is overcoming all sort of oppressive delusions and his ego is boosted by the resulting freedom. But there comes a time when he begins to erode the very foundations of the ego, and with it the foundations of humour as well. The developing sage goes beyond humour, not into seriousness, but into something altogether more indescribable and delightful. His comments are now infinitely serious and infinitely humorous all at once. His manner is both as light as a feather and as heavy as the Universe itself.

[Laughter] is a natural and useful part of a slave’s life. If one has sacrificed one’s life towards slaving away at a career and serving one’s family, and if one is under the thumb of deluded ideas, whether they be society's or one's own, then some laughter with friends provides much needed relief.

In other words, laughter always emanates out of attachment and is essentially a process of the ego overcoming oppression and experiencing an increase of power. It is always egotistical in nature.

-

[divine focus]

LOL

That's pretty insightful. I wouldn't call it overcoming oppression, though, but forgetfulness. There is an increase in felt power over whatever aspect of life, but you can enjoy it without being attached. Simply appreciating it without judging it to be good, even though it is felt to be good since you're enjoying it!

[samadhi]

David,

In other words, laughter always emanates out of attachment and is essentially a process of the ego overcoming oppression and experiencing an increase of power. It is always egotistical in nature.

It is a fundamentalist position to say that humour is all about anything. That is like saying literature is all about politics. Sure, you can read political literature but simply because you only read political literature doesn't mean that's all there is. It's the same with humour and your idea of oppression. It is one particular prism to view things through but if you want to use another one, it's available. Try this one. Humour can be about word play. Listen to this, you'll see what I mean.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPrm6luPmME

[Cory Duchesne]

S: You have already said that egolessness does not imply indifference. Now you say it implies emotionlessness. What is the difference between being indifferent and being emotionless?

CD: Picture a robot designed to win at chess. The robot is not indifferent in regards to it's actions, in fact, it's very specific, yet no frustration, anger or sorrow occurs.

S: I think you're trying to split hairs on this one. And a robot would certainly would be indifferent to any outcome as well as its own actions. It wouldn't even be aware of them in fact.

The point is that perhaps one can prefer a particular outcome over the other, yet not be emotional about outcomes.

[David Quinn]

David,

In other words, laughter always emanates out of attachment and is essentially a process of the ego overcoming oppression and experiencing an increase of power. It is always egotistical in nature.

It is a fundamentalist position to say that humour is all about anything. That is like saying literature is all about politics. Sure, you can read political literature but simply because you only read political literature doesn't mean that's all there is. It's the same with humour and your idea of oppression. It is one particular prism to view things through but if you want to use another one, it's available.

It is true that there are different kinds of humour - word play, slapstick, parody, satire, irony, etc - but the euphoria that leads to laughter is always the result of oppression being lifted. This euphoria doesn't just spring out of nowhere. It is literally the release of tension. Without the tension being there to begin with, there can be no release and no laughter.

Try this one. Humour can be about word play.

This form of humour was also discussed on that other thread:

Laird: "A horse walks into a bar.

The barman asks: 'Why the long face?'"

Who is the oppressed in this joke? And who is the oppressor?

David: The main oppressive agent in this case is the routine of language, although there are other oppressive agents emanating from societal expectations making contributions as well. As the joke unfolds, the listener hears the words and processes them in the normal fashion, thus keeping the mind in a state of slight complacancy and boredom. Suddenly, the phrase "long face" is introduced as a pun and everything changes. The double meaning of the phrase, with each meaning making sense in the context, presents the mind with a challenge and excites it.

Two things are happening here: (a) Normal routine is broken and some relief from boredom is experienced, and (b) The spell that language casts on the mind is momentarily loosened, providing one with a small taste of freedom.

The oppression caused by language is connected to the oppression caused by society itself. Language and society are intimately entwined with one another. So when a piece of language is suddenly twisted into a word play, the oppression exerted by language itself is momentarily lifted, and with it the oppression exerted by society. Hence, the euphoria.

Jokes seem even funnier when you are in an audience and everyone around you is also laughing. Here you have the added benefit of not only overthrowing the oppression exerted by society as a whole, but being able to do it within a bonding exercise with others. In this way, you also overthrow the oppression exerted by your own sense of alienation and aloneness.

People often laugh in social situations for no real reason at all, other than to revel in the feeling of connecting and bonding with those they are socializing with. Again, the oppression being overthrown in this case is the sense of alienation.

-

[bert]

in the laughter of men, I sense their volition towards release.

[sagerage]

The ego is simply the sense of self. When there is no ego, then the awareness of the self doesn't exist at that particular time. Just like happiness doesn't exist when a person is sad and when a person is happy sadness doesn't exist for them at that particular instance.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Keep in mind that for example the Buddhists have a really different conception of ego than a Freud. And language implies I in the same way a definition implies self-identity of a name giver. It doesn't necessarily have to exist in any fashion.

There can be hardly any doubt the ego in Freudian sense (the adult - reality principle) contains the very mechanisms for survival. One could compare this to the realities of the caterpillar: shedding of skins and finally forming some kind of pupa. Until this stage we're hardly talking about any advancement in spirituality - it's nature's way of dealing with the animal realm and there are many necessary ways possible.

Now one has to realize that spiritual teachings can be spit into two immensely different categories. One aims to prevent the forming of pupa - the cocoon, seeing it as defective, disabling for the health of the feeding caterpillar. It's a form of death after all and who knows how it might end. This category is necessarily almost the most vocal, authoritative and common - it preaches health, well being, no harm and relative successful living in a dangerous world.

The other category teaches about the metamorphosis - beyond caterpillar - beyond cocoon. To the ones ready to enter the pupal stage it provides encouragement and to the ones stuck in there it provides dynamite to blow themselves a way out. It provides nothing to the ones still marching around on ten thousand little feet, stuffing themselves as they go.