As a Mystic, do You View the Ego as the Main Impediment to Enlightenment?

[Sunstone]

As a mystic, do you view the ego as the main impediment to enlightenment? Why or why not?

By "ego", I mean here the psychological self. That is, the sense we have of being an "I", of being a "me"; separate and distinct from the rest of the world. Please note well: I do not mean the fact we are separate and distinct from the rest of the world, but rather the sense or feeling that we are.

It seems to me this psychological self is at odds with the sense of oneness, or the experience of the One, that lies at the heart of mysticism.

 

[sandandfoam]

It seems to me that my 'I' can sometimes be synonymous with 'we'. So no, I don't think that my 'I' is a barrier.
For me, I believe that the biggest barrier is literal thinking. I believe that all the prophets and sages are trying to nudge us towards metaphorical thought because, I believe, that's where we stand the best chance of enjoying the view.

 

[Windwalker]

I voted yes, provisionally. Technically ego simply means I or self-identification. You always have that sense of "I" as an individual, but where the center of gravity of the self-identification rests is what defines our sense of isolation or separation from others. Typically when we view the ego as a hindrance to enlightenment we mean the separate "I" that is actively engaged in defining ourselves as distinct from other. It is important and necessary to do this in order to function with others in the world, a world of boundaries. But when that identification becomes the exclusive identification it falsely creates the view of isolation inside our individual skin sacks.

As we identify exclusively as that, the one looking out at others, we create all manner of false expectations and fears of annihilation. It is the birth of existential angst, where we know one day we will be no more. That knowledge is more that just believing our bodies will cease to function, but that the "I" we identify with, the ego-self, will be gone as well. It's two deaths we face, and the latter is far more terrifying than just the ease with which our bodies are shut off. So the release from this into an enlightened state of awareness is to face letting go of the separate self, to go through the death process where that "I" is no more.

What hinders enlightenment is not the ego, but the clinging to the exclusive identification with the separate self. Some teachers speak of getting rid of the ego. I couldn't disagree more. That's like say getting rid of the body. The differentiated self is necessary to function, just as the body is. What needs to be "overcome" rather is the exclusive identification with that. The ego becomes in the process of its development the subject of our self-identification. But when we are able to turn that subject into an object, where we are able to pull back from it and see it as a part of what makes us up as individuals, we no longer exclusively self-identify with it and become less ensnared in the processes of defining and defending that "self".

You can think of this in terms of how when a young child just developing this sense of "I" is asked, "Who are you", he will point to his body and say, "This is me!". You ask a young teen who they are, and they point to their likes and dislikes, their friends and their family as points of reference. You ask a young adult who they are and they point to their careers, their personality types, their place in the larger community, and so forth. Each of these later identifications exist in the realm of mental ideas. And each of them become a wider and wider sphere of inclusion, away from the purely egocentric self of early ego development.

What enlightenment does is it 'overcomes' this exclusive identification with the separate self. It does not get rid of it. This release of identification with that separate self that occurs is the same sort of release that occurs at death. Nothing is left to hold on to. The body has died, the objects of the mind we identified with; friends, family, job, personality type, and so forth are all forced to be let go off and what is left, what remains is "beyond" those, transcends those. What remains is "I" which is none of those things, none of those objects which at earlier stages of life we self-identified as the subjects of our being, the body, the mind, the ego self. Enlightenment is quite literally dying and being born again. Our body remains intact. Our ego remains defined. But the center of gravity of our self-identification moves beyond them. What was previously the subject looking out at the world, is now an object of our own awareness.

 

[crossfire]

No, the ego is not a problem, imo. Dysfunctional ego, perhaps. Dysfunctional id, perhaps even moreso.
I agree with Windwalker about being stuck in a single conceptual view as being an enormous obstacle--your mind is closed to anything outside of this concept, so making different connections via the mystic experience is highly hindered in this case.

 

[Vouthon]

I view the single biggest barrier as "attachments" or "clinging".

The idea of the self can foster a powerful sense of "attachment" to a certain idea of who and what we are that can stymy our development.

"I" am a postman, a nurse, a Catholic, a Muslim, a shy person, an extravert.

Attachment to self leads us to a "this" and "that" sort of perspective that sets "me" and "my" beliefs against others who don't share them, or aren't perceived to be like me.

Self-awareness is not bad in itself IMHO. But attachment to self is certainly the most damaging barrier to spiritual development and mystics do transcend it.

You see, the mystic does not deal with limited, one - sided 'concepts' derived from the senses. He or she has an objective and intuitive grasping of the Absolute Truth, which cannot be expressed adequately through the medium of language or confined into one neat "perspective" or "viewpoint", which is to say that he or she has no attachments to views or concepts born of the "ego".

 

[allfoak]

It seems to me this psychological self is at odds with the sense of oneness, or the experience of the One, that lies at the heart of mysticism.

Without separation there would be no desire to become one.
The oneness is something that occurs when the ego is not resistant to the advances of the soul-self, which is always happening.

 

[Sunstone]

Without separation there would be no desire to become one.

Fascinating point! Do you think, like say, J. Krishnamurti, that the desire to become one can hinder becoming one?

 

[Sunstone]

I view the single biggest barrier as "attachments" or "clinging".

The self, or rather the idea that one is an independent entity, fosters a powerful sense of "attachment" to a certain idea of who and what we are that can stymy our development.

"I" am a postman, a nurse, a Catholic, a Muslim, a shy person, an extravert.

Attachment to self leads us to a "this" and "that" sort of perspective that sets "me" and "my" beliefs against others who don't share them, or aren't perceived to be like me.

Self-awareness is not bad in itself IMHO. But attachment to self is certainly the most damaging barrier to spiritual development and mystics do transcend it.

You see, the mystic does not deal with limited, one - sided 'concepts' derived from the senses. He or she has an objective and intuitive grasping of the Absolute Truth, which cannot be expressed adequately through the medium of language or confined into one neat "perspective" or "viewpoint", which is to say that he or she has no attachments to views or concepts born of the "ego".

This strikes me as brilliant.

 

[allfoak]

Fascinating point! Do you think, like say, J. Krishnamurti, that the desire to become one can hinder becoming one?

The actual process of focusing on becoming one is a hindrance because it brings attention to not having achieved oneness.

 

[Sunstone]

I voted yes, provisionally. Technically ego simply means I or self-identification. You always have that sense of "I" as an individual, but where the center of gravity of the self-identification rests is what defines our sense of isolation or separation from others. Typically when we view the ego as a hindrance to enlightenment we mean the separate "I" that is actively engaged in defining ourselves as distinct from other. It is important and necessary to do this in order to function with others in the world, a world of boundaries. But when that identification becomes the exclusive identification it falsely creates the view of isolation inside our individual skin sacks.

As we identify exclusively as that, the one looking out at others, we create all manner of false expectations and fears of annihilation. It is the birth of existential angst, where we know one day we will be no more. That knowledge is more that just believing our bodies will cease to function, but that the "I" we identify with, the ego-self, will be gone as well. It's two deaths we face, and the latter is far more terrifying than just the ease with which our bodies are shut off. So the release from this into an enlightened state of awareness is to face letting go of the separate self, to go through the death process where that "I" is no more.

What hinders enlightenment is not the ego, but the clinging to the exclusive identification with the separate self. Some teachers speak of getting rid of the ego. I couldn't disagree more. That's like say getting rid of the body. The differentiated self is necessary to function, just as the body is. What needs to be "overcome" rather is the exclusive identification with that. The ego becomes in the process of its development the subject of our self-identification. But when we are able to turn that subject into an object, where we are able to pull back from it and see it as a part of what makes us up as individuals, we no longer exclusively self-identify with it and become less ensnared in the processes of defining and defending that "self".

You can think of this in terms of how when a young child just developing this sense of "I" is asked, "Who are you", he will point to his body and say, "This is me!". You ask a young teen who they are, and they point to their likes and dislikes, their friends and their family as points of reference. You ask a young adult who they are and they point to their careers, their personality types, their place in the larger community, and so forth. Each of these later identifications exist in the realm of mental ideas. And each of them become a wider and wider sphere of inclusion, away from the purely egocentric self of early ego development.

What enlightenment does is it 'overcomes' this exclusive identification with the separate self. It does not get rid of it. This release of identification with that separate self that occurs is the same sort of release that occurs at death. Nothing is left to hold on to. The body has died, the objects of the mind we identified with; friends, family, job, personality type, and so forth are all forced to be let go off and what is left, what remains is "beyond" those, transcends those. What remains is "I" which is none of those things, none of those objects which at earlier stages of life we self-identified as the subjects of our being, the body, the mind, the ego self. Enlightenment is quite literally dying and being born again. Our body remains intact. Our ego remains defined. But the center of gravity of our self-identification moves beyond them. What was previously the subject looking out at the world, is now an object of our own awareness.

This also strikes me as a brilliant post. We're either getting a lot of brilliant posts this morning or I've had too much coffee. One or the other.

 

[crossfire]

The actual process of focusing on becoming one is a hindrance because it brings attention to not having achieved oneness.

Clinging to oneness is actually a duality, imo. Nonduality is a lack of preferences, according to the Hsin Hsin Ming.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Fascinating point! Do you think, like say, J. Krishnamurti, that the desire to become one can hinder becoming one?

I suspect that preconceptions about a goal can be an obstacle, in the sense of not being fully open to unfolding experience.

 

[crossfire]

I don't see the mystic experience in terms of oneness--I see it in terms of openness and spaciousness.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I don't see the mystic experience in terms of oneness--I see it in terms of openness and spaciousness.

Yes, me too. Spaciousness particularly.

 

[Sunstone]

I don't see the mystic experience in terms of oneness--I see it in terms of openness and spaciousness.

I have no doubt that's true for many people. However, I tend to favor W. T. Stace's line of investigation. When he compared the experiences of several self professed mystics, he found that they sorted into two kinds. One a sense of oneness in which things were still apparent in the perceptual field but seemingly unified. And a second experience, an experience of the One in which things were dissolved into a vast unity and nothing existed within the perceptual field as a discrete thing. No doubt it is a matter of personal opinion what constitutes the core mystical experience, or even whether there is such a thing as a core mystical experience. But I prefer for personal reasons to use Stace's model as it makes the most sense to me of the mystics I have read.

 

[crossfire]

I have no doubt that's true for many people. However, I tend to favor W. T. Stace's line of investigation. When he compared the experiences of several self professed mystics, he found that they sorted into two kinds. One a sense of oneness in which things were still apparent in the perceptual field but seemingly unified.

This sounds like tathata.

And a second experience, an experience of the One in which things were dissolved into a vast unity and nothing existed within the perceptual field as a discrete thing. No doubt it is a matter of personal opinion what constitutes the core mystical experience, or even whether there is such a thing as a core mystical experience. But I prefer for personal reasons to use Stace's model as it makes the most sense to me of the mystics I have read.

This sounds like what is described in the Hsin Hsin Ming.

 

[YmirGF]

Though I am not big on the concept of Enlightenment, as it is generally understood, over-identification with ego, as self, can hold one back from experiencing larger aspects of being. In reality, it's not the ego that is the problem, it's the over-identification with ego being the totality of self.

One a sense of oneness in which things were still apparent in the perceptual field but seemingly unified.

I'm definitely in this camp but readily understand why people see things the way they do in the other camp.

 

[crossfire]

This sounds like tathata.

This sounds like what is described in the Hsin Hsin Ming.

I could probably add all sorts of other mystical experiences to this list. A united multiplicity?

 

[Vouthon]

I don't see the mystic experience in terms of oneness--I see it in terms of openness and spaciousness.

Hmm sounds familiar to this reader of Catholic mystical texts, although Catholic mystics combine the language of "oneness" with "openness" and "spaciousness". Methinks you are creating a wee bit of a false dichotomy between the two....

"...All things are too small to hold me,
I am so vast
In the Infinite
I reach for the Uncreated
I have
touched it,
it undoes me
wider than wide
Everything else
is too narrow
You know this well,
you who are also there.

Tighten
to nothing
the circle
that is
the world's things
Then the Naked
circle
can grow wide,
enlarging,
embracing all..."

- Hadewijch, 13th century Beguile and Flemish mystic​

"...France and England are mine, from sea to sea;
So firm is my grip,
No one takes up arms against me.
Mine is Saxony, mine is Guascogne,
Mine are Burgundy and all of Normandy.

Mine the kingdom of Prussia and that of Bohemia,
Hibernia and Roumania, Scotland and Frisia.
Mine is Tuscany and the valley of Spoleto

...

Mine is Campagna, the Roman hills, and the plains of Lombardy;
Mine are Sardinia, Cyprus, Corsica, and Crete,
And unknown kingdoms and numberless subjects beyond the seas -
Medes, Persians, Elamites, Syrians and Mongols,
Georgians, Ethiopians, Indians and Muslims

...

Land, fields full of flowers, trees,
Succulent fruits, livestock - all at my command, all mine.

Lakes, rivers, and oceans teeming with fish,
Air, winds, birds - all pay me joyful homage.
Moon and sun, sky and stars, are but minor treasures:
The treasures that make me burst into song
Lie beyond the sky that you can see.

Participating in the essence of all creatures
It can now say, "All things are mine."
The doors open wide, and entering within
The soul becomes one with God,
Possesses what He Possesses. It hears
What it did not hear, sees what it did not know,
Possesses what it did not believe,
Savors that which has no taste.

In losing all, the soul has risen
To the pinnacle of the measureless;
Because it has renounced all
That is not divine,
It now holds in its grasp
The unimaginable Good
In all its abundance,
A loss and a gain impossible to describe.

...

Spiritual poverty, deepest wisdom, you are slave to nothing,
And in your detachment you possess all things.

God does not dwell in a heart that's confined,
And a heart is only as big as the love it holds.

To live as myself and yet not I,
My being no longer my being,
This is a paradox
We cannot pretend to understand!

Spiritual poverty is being attached to nothing, wanting nothing,
And possessing all things in the spirit of freedom..."

- Blessed Jacopone Da Todi (c.1230-1306), Italian Catholic mystic & Franciscan ​

 

[crossfire]

Hmm sounds familiar to this reader of Catholic mystical texts, although Catholic mystics combine the language of "oneness" with "openness" and "spaciousness". Methinks you are creating a wee bit of a false dichotomy between the two....

Perhaps. "One" is the ultimate conceptual word, though, no? Perhaps I'm developing an aversion (hindrance) to it.