What is the ego?

[Gesundheit2]

I want to beat this horse to death.

There are various definitions for the ego but very little agreement between people, including spiritual. Maybe it's because of how vague and general the term is being used and how layman it's now become. Or maybe it's just because the ego is actually a tricky beast, as they say.

From the biggest picture possible, how do you define the ego?

Creativity is encouraged, Mr. @Nahm 

Edited July 19, 2021 by Gesundheit2

[allislove]

Since 'ego' is a noun it's a bit misleading, should be a verb - egoing. It's identification with I-thinking: "I am bored", "I like ice cream", etc.

[Gesundheit2]

@allislove Interesting. Although, does it necessarily have to do with I-thinking in specific? What about other-thinking? I mean other-thinking as in any pronoun whatsoever. Examples, this (it) is hard, that (it) is far away, she is beautiful, he is sad, you are smart, etc... these are all phrases that don't have I-thinking, at least not explicitly. Do they count as ego?

[WelcometoReality]

29 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

I want to beat this horse to death.

There are various definitions for the ego but very little agreement between people, including spiritual. Maybe it's because of how vague and general the term is being used and how layman it's now become. Or maybe it's just because the ego is actually a tricky beast, as they say.

From the biggest picture possible, how do you define the ego?

Creativity is encouraged, Mr. @Nahm 

Like @allislove said it's identification. I would also add feeling to it since the I thought can have an underlying feeling tone to it. Like I am bored or I am fearful, you feel the feeling. The feeling can be the base of many different thoughts.

[Breakingthewall]

the ego is the mind, what defines us as human. it is all thought, memory and projection. He is the creator of time, of life as a progression with past, present and future. it is any sense or meaning. basically it is all the software that makes us work in the world, and especially the one programmed through language. it is a ghostly entity that makes the human kind a perfect survival machine

Edited July 19, 2021 by Breakingthewall

[Nahm]

1 hour ago, Gesundheit2 said:

I want to beat this horse to death.

There are various definitions for the ego but very little agreement between people, including spiritual. Maybe it's because of how vague and general the term is being used and how layman it's now become. Or maybe it's just because the ego is actually a tricky beast, as they say.

From the biggest picture possible, how do you define the ego?

Creativity is encouraged, Mr. @Nahm 

https://www.actualityofbeing.com/maps … see ‘aversion’ at the bottom. 

https://youtu.be/h3Qjk9LqDvw … listen to the first song there; hear for the first time.

Second song’s pretty on point as well. “I wait for you there, like a stone. I wait for you there, alone.”

No mind is not conceptual. 

[gettoefl]

ego is how we start out, god is how we end up

if you have been unified for eternity how about try being split up for a while

then see how it feels to learn how to reunite yourself namely realize love

[hyruga]

Ego is defined differently by different people. Even teachers like Eckhart Tolle defined them differently from world renowned psychologists or other self help gurus.

[Gesundheit2]

2 hours ago, WelcometoReality said:

Like @allislove said it's identification. I would also add feeling to it since the I thought can have an underlying feeling tone to it. Like I am bored or I am fearful, you feel the feeling. The feeling can be the base of many different thoughts.

Idk. I really don't think that's quite final (i.e. biggest picture possible). I mean, sure, identity is part of the ego, and it's based on feeling, but that's not all of what I experience as an ego.

Identification seems more like one aspect/variable of the whole thing, and it's probably about rigidity vs. fluidity of identity, rather than the reality/actuality of the ego as a whole. If I am not identified with any thoughts whatsoever, does that mean I don't have an ego? I don't think so, because there's still an experiencer (experience, whatever) in that case. What's the difference, anyway, between a raw sensation and a sensation with identity/thoughts added on top of it? Doesn't the raw sensation count as ego, too?

Edited July 19, 2021 by Gesundheit2

[allislove]

2 hours ago, Gesundheit2 said:

@allislove Interesting. Although, does it necessarily have to do with I-thinking in specific? What about other-thinking? I mean other-thinking as in any pronoun whatsoever. Examples, this (it) is hard, that (it) is far away, she is beautiful, he is sad, you are smart, etc... these are all phrases that don't have I-thinking, at least not explicitly.

"I"-thinking is the root thought so to speak. "This is hard" for whom, for me, who are you? "It is far away" from where, from the body, are you the body? ... implicit "I"-thinking  

As @WelcometoReality mentioned it's crucial to realize the relationship between feeling and thinking, since the feeling is "the guidance system" in terms of Abraham Hicks vocabulary. 

Quote

Do they count as ego?

There is no problem with thinking, in the same way that there is no problem with sound of a bird's song in the forest. I'd call the ego to be a mask, pretending that you are a separate entity living in the world, due to identification with "I"-thinking.  

[Gesundheit2]

1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:

the ego is the mind, what defines us as human. it is all thought, memory and projection. He is the creator of time, of life as a progression with past, present and future. it is any sense or meaning. basically it is all the software that makes us work in the world, and especially the one programmed through language. it is a ghostly entity that makes the human kind a perfect survival machine

Can you narrow all that down into one very specific and short statement? What is the essence of ego?

[ZzzleepingBear]

2 hours ago, allislove said:

Since 'ego' is a noun it's a bit misleading, should be a verb - egoing. It's identification with I-thinking: "I am bored", "I like ice cream", etc.

One word is all it takes. The rest is history:-P

[Gesundheit2]

1 hour ago, Nahm said:

https://www.actualityofbeing.com/maps … see ‘aversion’ at the bottom. 

https://youtu.be/h3Qjk9LqDvw … listen to the first song there; hear for the first time.

Second song’s pretty on point as well. “I wait for you there, like a stone. I wait for you there, alone.”

Thanks for the article and site, and the music suggestion.

1 hour ago, Nahm said:

No mind is not conceptual. 

Maybe, but I am not trying to catch no-mind. I'm, rather, trying to catch the mind, aka the ego. So, why can't I use concepts? I have the experience, just trying to verbalize it, if that's okay with your ego 

[allislove]

32 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

Identification seems more like one aspect/variable of the whole thing, and it's probably about rigidity vs. fluidity of identity, rather than the reality/actuality of the ego as a whole. 

There is no reality/actuality of the ego  

Quote

If I am not identified with any thoughts whatsoever, does that mean I don't have an ego? 

If you don't identify with any thought - there is no you  

Quote

 I don't think so, because there's still an experiencer (experience, whatever) in that case.

Return all of your attention where the body is, try to find the one subject that switch on every object, by relaxation. 

No mind is not conceptual as @Nahm mentioned.

[Gesundheit2]

1 minute ago, allislove said:

There is no reality/actuality of the ego  

Says the ego.

2 minutes ago, allislove said:

If you don't identified with any thoughts - there is no you  

Not true, either. If I don't identify with any thoughts, that means I don't know who or what I am, but not necessarily that I don't exist. The existence of the thing that's experiencing this experience, whatever it might be, does not hinge upon thoughts. Thoughts come and go, and ego still remains. Ego is larger than thought/identity. In a sense, it's a container of the thoughts, but again, that's not what all the ego is, ime.

[Gesundheit2]

1 hour ago, hyruga said:

Ego is defined differently by different people. Even teachers like Eckhart Tolle defined them differently from world renowned psychologists or other self help gurus.

Yeah. Just trying to create a universal definition here (biggest picture possible), at least for myself. I think anything less than the biggest picture possible is myopic and causes confusion.

What is the essence of ego?

[WelcometoReality]

40 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

Idk. I really don't think that's quite final (i.e. biggest picture possible). I mean, sure, identity is part of the ego, and it's based on feeling, but that's not all of what I experience as an ego.

Identification seems more like one aspect/variable of the whole thing, and it's probably about rigidity vs. fluidity of identity, rather than the reality/actuality of the ego as a whole.

One could see it as identification = rigidity and no identification = fluidity. Ego isn't an entity that exist. It only seems to exist because identification has a separating quality to it. "I am the owner of my thoughts and feelings" which is a thought.

40 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

If I am not identified with any thoughts whatsoever, does that mean I don't have an ego? I don't think so, because there's still an experiencer (experience, whatever) in that case.

One can still be identified with being the witness of experience. It's a half baked realization. Identified to being the nothingness that experiences. Which is rigidity and still separation between the experiencer and the experience.

 

40 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

What's the difference, anyway, between a raw sensation and a sensation with identity/thoughts added on top of it? Doesn't the raw sensation count as ego, too?

Raw sensation is when the experiencer and experience is the same, oneness. Experience implies an experiencer which is thought dividing the two but there is only one. Can one explain oneness with language that is built upon subject-object division? ?

[allislove]

23 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

Says the ego.

Yes... the point that the source is one: 

23 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

Not true, either. If I don't identify with any thoughts, that means I don't know who or what I am, but not necessarily that I don't exist.

You, as separate entity, don't exist.

Quote

The existence of the thing that's experiencing this experience, whatever it might be, does not hinge upon thoughts. 

Spot on ?

Quote

Thoughts come and go, and ego still remains. Ego is larger than thought/identity. In a sense, it's a container of the thoughts

Sounds about right ... if the definition of the 'ego' is 'everything'/'you' ??

[Gesundheit2]

1 minute ago, WelcometoReality said:

Ego isn't an entity that exist. It only seems to exist

How do you distinguish between appearance and actuality? Ego appears to exist, but so does everything else. If you deny the existence of ego because it seems like a mere appearance, then how do you not deny existence itself? After all, all of what you have of existence is just your perception of it, which could very well be just an appearance, exactly like what you think of as the ego.

[Gesundheit2]

9 minutes ago, allislove said:

Yes... the point that the source is one: 

So, basically, ego is God? Huh?

If that's so, then why does the distinction exist? Why are there two words instead of one? Wouldn't it be wiser to remove either of them and apply the other universally?

14 minutes ago, allislove said:

You, as separate entity, don't exist.

If by a separate entity you mean some ghost floating in some distant isolated galaxy, then yes.