Can A Human Function Without An Ego-Self?

[Taylor Seraphim]

But we're descended from apes, and I assume they would have had a survival instinct but no ego.

Incorrect, we are descend from an ape-like ancestor and apes have an ego as well, just less developed.

 

[Aupmanyav]

However, I wonder, is it actually psychologically possible to operate without, or with a severely diminished, ego-self?

I think it is entirely possible and that thousands of people in Hindu have won over their ego-self including Sri Guru Nanak and Kabir. We get this in our 'janam-ghutti'.

'Janam-ghutti' was a grandma medication that was given to infants in India to safeguard their health, the first medication.

Well, in my understanding you would then be in a trance-like state and not be great at conducting worldly business.

I do not think so. This is the central message of BhagawadGita:

"Yoga-sthah kuru karmāni, sangam tyaktvā, Dhananjaya;
siddhi-asiddhiyoh samo bhūtvā, samatvam yoga uchyate." BG 2.48

Perform your duty equipoised, O Arjuna, abandoning all attachment to success or failure. Such equanimity is called yoga.

Read it with 'ma sangah tu akarmani' (do not be enamored of inaction).
Krishna does not advocate inaction. He advocates unceasing action 'not marred by attachment' and which is in line with 'dharma'.
Sure, it is a yoga and not easy to come.

 

[crossfire]

Sat Sri Akaal

"Ego" may be described differently among dharmic paths. When I use 'ego-self' or 'ego-mind' (or haumai), I use it to mean the highly constructed psyche\self that presents itself as the model of health and normality, and puts everything else/all others as separate external points of reference.

As a Sikh, I believe the task at hand is to dissolve the ego-self sense of separation. The idea is, this causes one to 'merge' with Everything, become radically

However, I wonder, is it actually psychologically possible to operate without, or with a severely diminished, ego-self?

I'm interested to hear what other followers of dharma who can relate with this concept, have to say about it.

Gurfateh

Babies don't have much of an ego--they are mostly id. They are also highly impressionable and susceptible to environmental influences.

 

[Treks]

Babies don't have much of an ego--they are mostly id. They are also highly impressionable and susceptible to environmental influences.

What if, instead of being mostly id, one was mostly super-ego?

 

[crossfire]

What if, instead of being mostly id, one was mostly super-ego?

Probably wouldn't survive infancy.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Sat Sri Akaal

"Ego" may be described differently among dharmic paths. When I use 'ego-self' or 'ego-mind' (or haumai), I use it to mean the highly constructed psyche\self that presents itself as the model of health and normality, and puts everything else/all others as separate external points of reference.

As a Sikh, I believe the task at hand is to dissolve the ego-self sense of separation. The idea is, this causes one to 'merge' with Everything, become radically

However, I wonder, is it actually psychologically possible to operate without, or with a severely diminished, ego-self?

I'm interested to hear what other followers of dharma who can relate with this concept, have to say about it.

Gurfateh

Namaste,

From my humble Hindu understanding of Ahamkara ("Identification with"), it is surly possible to not be attached to what you identify with, i think non attachment to Ahamkara is the advice, psychologically it is possible not to identify with the memory/impressions (Manas/Sanskaar) by isolating each of our many sanskaraas that we have gathered and realizing their changeable and finite nature then transcending these and realizing the Chit which has no sanskara and therefore no Ahankara, I think this is one of many process of what we call Yoga.

Dhanyavad

 

[Banjankri]

However, I wonder, is it actually psychologically possible to operate without, or with a severely diminished, ego-self?

Yes, it is. Very nice experience.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

As a Sikh, I believe the task at hand is to dissolve the ego-self sense of separation.

What task is there for one who knows such separation doesn't exist?

 

[atanu]

What task is there for one who knows such separation doesn't exist?

My regards!!!

 

[Treks]

What task is there for one who knows such separation doesn't exist?

Help others to realise it, too.

 

[Aupmanyav]

There are various kinds of Buddhas

"A Pratyekabuddha or paccekabuddha literally "a lone buddha", "a buddha on their own" or "a private buddha", is one of three types of enlightened beings according to some schools of Buddhism. The other two types are arhats and Sammāsambuddhas (Sanskrit samyaksambuddhas)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratyekabuddha

I mean not all Buddhas teach 'dhamma'.

 

[atanu]

Help others to realise it, too.

When there is no separation, there is no other.

 

[Treks]

When there is no separation, there is no other.

Yes, but not everyone knows that. *shrugs*

 

[ajay0]

Sat Sri Akaal

"Ego" may be described differently among dharmic paths. When I use 'ego-self' or 'ego-mind' (or haumai), I use it to mean the highly constructed psyche\self that presents itself as the model of health and normality, and puts everything else/all others as separate external points of reference.

As a Sikh, I believe the task at hand is to dissolve the ego-self sense of separation. The idea is, this causes one to 'merge' with Everything, become radically

However, I wonder, is it actually psychologically possible to operate without, or with a severely diminished, ego-self?

I'm interested to hear what other followers of dharma who can relate with this concept, have to say about it.

Gurfateh

The ego focusses on duality as in ' Us versus them' , 'I','me' , and 'mine', 'you' and 'yours'.

In Awareness or Love, which are actually two sides of the same coin, duality vanishes and Oneness prevails.

Where there is Awareness/MIndfulness or Love, there is no ego and viceversa. You will also operate more effectively and efficiently with Awareness/Love than with the ego.

This is because the ego is reactive, breeds hatred and antagonism. I have put a thread on this .

Awareness on the other hand is connected with intuition, love , harmony and non-reactivity which makes for stable relationships, patience and understanding.

Happiness, peace and bliss is also self-generated in Awareness while misery and suffering is the lot of the ego even if it is surrounded by sense-pleasures and gratifications.

 

[crossfire]

The ego focusses on duality as in ' Us versus them' , 'I','me' , and 'mine', 'you' and 'yours'.

Being able to discern between what you think individually from the group mind is an important skill, especially if the group mind has been infected by greed, hatred, or delusion. There is a need for some sort of mechanism to stop the spread of collective, malignant insanity driven by greed, hatred, and delusion.

In Awareness or Love, which are actually two sides of the same coin, duality vanishes and Oneness prevails.

On the contrary, I would say that individuality is respected and honored in the presence of love and awareness.

Where there is Awareness/MIndfulness or Love, there is no ego and viceversa. You will also operate more effectively and efficiently with Awareness/Love than with the ego.

Again, I would have to disagree. Love/Awareness/Mindfulness recognizes and respects personal boundaries of individual beings. It is when you don't recognize personal boundaries that human rights violations occur. Narcissism, which is an id related function, has difficulty recognizing personal boundaries, and sees others as an extension of themselves and exploits others for their own personal self-gratification.

This is because the ego is reactive, breeds hatred and antagonism. I have put a thread on this .

Id and Superego have natural antagonism against each other. Ego mediates between id and superego, and brings peace.

Awareness on the other hand is connected with intuition, love , harmony and non-reactivity which makes for stable relationships, patience and understanding.

Awareness is based on ego. (See this link: Lexicon of Jungian Terms-Ego )
However, fallacy can occur when ego thinks it is the center of conscious awareness, and ignores its function of mediating between the other parts of consciousness--creating love, harmony, and non-reactivity among the different parts of the consciousness, especially when it comes to the antagonistic reactivity between id and superego.

Happiness, peace and bliss is also self-generated in Awareness while misery and suffering is the lot of the ego even if it is surrounded by sense-pleasures and gratifications.

Actually, this is describing id functions (pleasure principle) instead of ego functions. Again, id can have a difficult time discerning and recognizing personal and other boundaries.

 

[ajay0]

Being able to discern between what you think individually from the group mind is an important skill, especially if the group mind has been infected by greed, hatred, or delusion. There is a need for some sort of mechanism to stop the spread of collective, malignant insanity driven by greed, hared, and delusion.

The unconscious mind goes with the conditioning of the crowd while the conscious mind is able to reject outside conditioning and make proper decisions on its own due to its ability to see reality as it is, powered by intuition.

On the contrary, I would say that individuality is respected and honored in the presence of love and awareness.

You are basing the sense of self or individuality on the ego over here, and not on Awareness , imo. This is the reason why you feel a sense of distinction between the individuality and else. Awareness /Love itself is your innate individuality, not the conditioned propaganda that has been programmed into you.

Again, I would have to disagree. Love/Awareness/Mindfulness recognizes and respects personal boundaries of individual beings.

I have not said anything to the contrary. The ego is expoitative and can potentally exploit the other for its gratification.

Awareness is based on ego. (See this link: Lexicon of Jungian Terms-Ego )

I am stating this from the context of eastern philosophy and psychology.

I am not much of an admirer of Jung considering his anti-semitic prejudices and eulogisation of Adolf Hitler.

Western psychology has not yet understood or comprehended the phenomena of enlightenment , and because of its short duration in time compared to the eastern, has not yet properly understood and resolved the complexities of the mind. And this is the reason why it has become a failure in resolving the mental crisis in the west with even therapists having therapists at the moment.

But you can make a lot of money out of it. I grant you that.

 

[crossfire]

The unconscious mind goes with the conditioning of the crowd while the conscious mind is able to reject outside conditioning and make proper decisions on its own due to its ability to see reality as it is, powered by intuition.

I am using the term "ego" to refer to the conscious mind, or the Sixth Consciousness of the Yogacara system.
The term "id" is roughly equivalent to the Seventh Consciousness of the Yogacara system.

You are basing the sense of self or individuality on the ego over here, and not on Awareness , imo. This is the reason why you feel a sense of distinction between the individuality and else. Awareness /Love itself is your innate individuality, not the conditioned propaganda that has been programmed into you.

I have had enough jhana experience in order to recognize the love, joy, and rapture part of it as "consciousness landing." Whether this is my innate individuality or not, who can say? However, I do have an individual subjective mind/Buddha Nature, private to myself, which is the hallmark of any sentient being.

I have not said anything to the contrary. The ego is expoitative and can potentally exploit the other for its gratification.

I would call this id, rather than ego. (Seventh consciousness rather than the sixth consciousness.) In yogacara, it is the job of the ego (Sixth Consciousness) to purify the innate fallacy of the id (Seventh Consciousness.) In Western psychology, it is the job of the ego (Sixth Consciousness) to reconcile the id (Seventh Consciousness) to the Superego, and to end the adversity between them.

I am stating this from the context of eastern philosophy and psychology.

I'm attempting to correctly translate the terms so we are on the same page.

I am not much of an admirer of Jung considering his anti-semitic prejudices and eulogisation of Adolf Hitler.

Have you perused Jung's forward to the translation of the Taoist Classic, "Secret of the Golden Flower?"

Western psychology has not yet understood or comprehended the phenomena of enlightenment , and because of its short duration in time compared to the eastern, has not yet properly understood and resolved the complexities of the mind. And this is the reason why it has become a failure in resolving the mental crisis in the west with even therapists having therapists at the moment.

But you can make a lot of money out of it. I grant you that.

I wouldn't be so quick to rush to judgement regarding the West. (I consider the subsequent developments from the Proto-Indo-European culture to comprise "The West," so India is the ground where East meets West.)

Your mileage may vary.

I'm a Buddhist who took up study with western esoterics in order to not only overcome my aversity to Western philosophy, but to help reconcile East and West both within my own mind, and to share this with others. (Like a good little Sixth Consciousness/Ego is supposed to do.)

 

[ajay0]

Have you perused Jung's forward to the translation of the Taoist Classic, "Secret of the Golden Flower?"

He has also similarly expressed great regard and admiration for the enlightened master Ramana Maharshi in his speech and books, though when he visited India he avoided visiting him.

He described Ramana as being absorbed in "the self", but admits to not understanding Ramana's self-realisation or what he actually did do. He also admits that his field of psychology is not competent in understanding the eastern insight of the Atman "the self"

I see him as only a prejudiced psychologist. He may have had intellectual insights into the nature of the mind, but he was not enlightened.

I also do not esteem him much as he had stated that Hitler was a mystic and a seer.

Here are insightful sayings of Carl Jung with respect to Hitler , " "The secret to Hitler's power is ... that his unconscious has exceptional access to his conscious and ... that he allows himself to be moved by it. [Others] have too much rationality, too much cerebrum to obey it [but] Hitler listens."

"[Hitler is a] shy and friendly man with artistic tastes and gifts."

I wouldn't be so quick to rush to judgement regarding the West. (I consider the subsequent developments from the Proto-Indo-European culture to comprise "The West," so India is the ground where East meets West.)

The west may have developed its languages from the easterners, but would that mean that the west is an ancient civilization itself !! Two of the world wars both originated in the west which wiped out a major port of the european population, and a major part of an another important ancient civilization, the Jewish.

I'm a Buddhist who took up study with western esoterics in order to not only overcome my aversity to Western philosophy, but to help reconcile East and West both within my own mind, and to share this with others. (Like a good little Sixth Consciousness/Ego is supposed to do.)

You can learn both on its own merit, but to mix up the two might lead you nowhere, imho.

 

[crossfire]

<...>




The west may have developed its languages from the easterners, but would that mean that the west is an ancient civilization itself !! Two of the world wars both originated in the west which wiped out a major port of the european population, and a major part of an another important ancient civilization, the Jewish.

Oh, there is much more than language!
Proto-Indo-European religion - Wikipedia

You can learn both on its own merit, but to mix up the two might lead you nowhere, imho.

"This is dukkha, this is the arising of dukkha, this is the cessation of dukkha. This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of dukkha." is not dependent on cultural context, imo.

 

[Tabu]

Sat Sri Akaal

"Ego" may be described differently among dharmic paths. When I use 'ego-self' or 'ego-mind' (or haumai), I use it to mean the highly constructed psyche\self that presents itself as the model of health and normality, and puts everything else/all others as separate external points of reference.

As a Sikh, I believe the task at hand is to dissolve the ego-self sense of separation. The idea is, this causes one to 'merge' with Everything, become radically

However, I wonder, is it actually psychologically possible to operate without, or with a severely diminished, ego-self?

I'm interested to hear what other followers of dharma who can relate with this concept, have to say about it.

Gurfateh

According to Brahmakumaris EGO- Ahankaar , is attachment to a false Image of who I am.
False because this attachment is towards the temporary and acquired , and once this realization is reached it becomes easy to drop ego.

Wonderfully explained by sister Shivani