To: K-list
Recieved: 1999/12/10 18:29
Subject: [K-list] Re: Ego! What? Again?
From: Wim Borsboom
On 1999/12/10 18:29, Wim Borsboom posted thus to the K-list:
Dear Ville and Zarko
The two of you impress me very much with your authentic discussion on 'ego'.
(Of course why would you or anybody care about what I am being impressed by?
That impression being just... MY thing.)
Zarko, I love what you say about ego. (Your cultural background must be so
different from most of us. Where do you write from?)
I also see nothing much wrong with ego. Ego is what all of us are
individually, I am that I am, as we are synchronimously (spelled like
synonymously) participating in the "Mystical Body of Christ" I AM.
"Mystical Body of Christ ????", yep, my background is showing. Cannot help
that, and do not have to apologize for that.
"Is Ego the same as I ?" Now that appears to be the question.
Many antique languages do not need a pronoun when the subject is the first
person singular. Many antique languages do not need any pronouns at all as
part of most sentence structures. "Cogito ergo sum" is a good example. Most
modern languages need pronouns before their verbs... There must have been
quite a shift in subject/verb/object distinction in the development of
languages...some shift from 'antique' to 'modern'. And we in these modern(?)
days do not fully understand what happened... and why... and when exactly.
It would lead to far to get into that deeply. But let's see if we can at
least can get a sense of that shift. At one point in time an 'out of focus
shifting' must have taken place regarding the simplicity of implicit, self
evident subjectivity.
The self became objectified:
-from 'I' as an implicit self-evident unidentified subject
-to 'I' as a self-conscious identified objectified subject.
And... that shift should not necessarily have taken place!
We must agree with that, otherwise why would we be pursuing a path that will
eventually lead to a realization of dissolution of the separate and isolated
'I'.
"Ego death" does not occur in that dissolving realization, there is 'no
death of the ego". I have not experienced the death of my ego. All that is
just symbolic verbiage, guru terminology when s/he is trying to convince
the aspirant (ha!) of something that is in principle not verbalizable.
The realization is "I"
Simple...
It is only afterwards that one 'may' testify to that realization in a verbal
way. Something along the lines of, "The observation of a separate ego is not
tenable any longer."
The one who wants to kill the ego (a typical stance of the aspirant
(hehehe)) is the one who wants to kill a chimera. One cannot kill the ego as
it does not exist. That kind of enemy is illusive, it can and it will always
shape-shift illusively. Do not fight the ego, an illusion... love yourself
unconditionally... One will only and simply realize oneself as I AM.
'Ego', what a peculiar word!
Ego is the by definition SUBJECT, it CANNOT be turned into an object REALLY,
as in working on IT, doing that is an ILLUSION. There is a point in 'being
aware' where reflection is OK, naturally human. This reflection, however,
may over time become tainted with judgmental connotations of narcissism.
However, egoic reflection is not the same as egotistic self-absorption...
Judgmental connotations of narcissism are invariably brought about by
external 'sentencing and judging' sources. Something moralistic happens that
was not there before. Something that makes us doubt that our obvious,
native, innate, implicit and 'naive' subjectivity is... truth and love.
Unconditional SELF
Unconditioned SELF
The undoubted I
Unquestioned SELF
SELF is actually self
Which is actually SELF
Which is...
Indistinct...
Which is...
When does that shift take place? When does the doubt step in, when does
self-questioning arise?
It actually occurs to pretty well every human being when, in our young age,
we are being made self-conscious, shocked away from our in-vulnerability by
*physical* powers greater than ourselves, violated in our creative
mentations (inspiration, imagination, anticipation) by "illusive games of
'if... then...' rewards and punishment dynamics" replacing natural and
original "imaginative 'if... then...' cause and effect dynamics"; the
"blurry out of focus and a-stigmatic" shift away from our original self,
when we are compared against templates of external norms, expectations and
mores.
Judgement stepping in.
The 'if ...then.. illusion' engraved into us as sentences, judgements,
spells, mesmerizations, curses. etc....all deceptions...
A bit about Descartes
"Cogito ergo sum." The translation "I think therefore I am" is actually
quite ridiculous. In Latin one can use the word 'ego' prior to a verb, if it
were needed for Rene Descartes to have used the word 'ego' he would have
used it. He did not use it... so he did not mean what we understand. The
word 'ergo' also does not mean 'therefore' the way we understand it, as
exemplified in the usual translation. The word 'ergo' entails a sense of
synchronicity, not consequence.The Cartesian mind/body split that we are so
used to now, is also not necessarily purely Rene Descartes. Over the years,
after Descartes (and there were also quite a few ecclesiastical dualistic
influences before Descartes' time) quite a substantial amount of
morals-based judgmental thinking got mixed in with Cartesian conclusions.
The same as what has happened to the word 'ego': quite a substantial amount
of morals-based judgmental thinking got mixed in, so that the original
meaning of the word got lost... In fact the meaning got turned around.
Instead of 'ego' being a subjective pronoun, it became an object.
That is curious... It has turned philosophy topsy-turvy, psychology,
psychiatry and all kinds of other org-y-s. (-:
So, no more ego-bashing orgies no more, no way!
I have been in enough ego-less (the common deviated understanding of the
word ego) states to know what is to be, simply BE. I've also been in enough
ego-contained states afterwards to know that 'ego' (the purged, original
meaning) is not the culprit. It is in fact after many satoris and samadhis
in various formats, gradations and depths that my acceptance of the run of t
he mill, day-to-day ego became conditionless. I have no trouble being in a
:-) samadhi-less state :-), being ordinary, unless that is original
samadhi....
Love, Wim
Zarko wrote:
>> Once in the time I was look at ego, like some enemy, but why. In this
>> form of reality, ego is also my protection of vacuum of the space where
>> I exist. If I am not prepered, I can go mad without Ego, because,
>> ego is not only something bad. There is nothing on the Earth, that is
>> clearly black without any white in self.
> Ego can be a big comfort, we need one most of the
>time (at least in non-monasteric setting), but we have to be able to shut
>down the Ego when it's causing problems. At least temporarily. In reality
>Ego is a feeble construct that wouldn't survive even elementary
>philosophical analysis, unless our safety-comfort-everyday mechanisms were
>so dependent on it.
>> This is kundalini for me. That space engine.
Ville wrote:
>Suffer for a while, after which the auto-repair system start working
>properly & the ship is better than a new one (as far as conflicts between
>ship's various systems go).
Zarko:
>> You can't be separeted from life. You are in life, only what you need is
>> to admit this to yourself. If you are not in life, where are you:))
>
>Well, how about the Universe as a whole. Seperation between life & death
>is another thing Ego does.
DISCLAIMER!
Home | Archive Index | Search the archives | Subscribe
K. List FAQ | Kundalini FAQs | Signs and Symptoms | Awakening Experiences | K. list Polls | Member Essays | Meditations | List Topics | Art Gallery | Cybrary | Sitemap | Email the moderators.
symbol.