Guest guest Posted April 1, 2006 Report Share Posted April 1, 2006 In a message dated 4/1/2006 9:23:45 AM Pacific Standard Time, lissbon2002 writes: > In Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > > > > >>The idea of " me " is a thought mistaken for a psychological entity > >>which can be harmed and therefore must be protected. As if it was > >>the body. But it is not a body, but a thought, connected to other > >>thoughts, a thought-system, not necessary for the body/mind´s > >>functioning. > > > >L.E: The problems is, that this thought-system IS necessary for the > >body/mind's functioning until it possibly reaches a stage of > development where it is > >no longer needed like the shell of a lobster. Before that stage is > reached > >where it can be discarded, it is an essential and organic part of > the organism, > >body-brain-mind-self system. > > > >Larry Epston > > > This is exactly what I wonder about. > I wonder whether it is necessary at all. > Or is it only necessary as the suffering seems necessary to be free > from suffering? ;-) > > Len > > L.E: My assumption is that the ego self is a natural outcome of brain, mind environment relationships. As the baby human organism interacts with its environment, the ego self develops and naturally grows. Then there are endless variations. Sometimes the function get diseased, or distorted. In others it acts harmoniously with the organism. As it grows through experience, a few may develop a new interior as does the lobster, and it becomes possible to discard or dissolve it. Much of so-called spiritual life consists of various methods to get free of the overdeveloped ego self even as a lobster discards and eats its shell or a snake wriggles out of its skin after great effort. What do you think? Larry Epston Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 2, 2006 Report Share Posted April 2, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 4/1/2006 9:23:45 AM Pacific Standard Time, > lissbon2002 writes: > > > In Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > > > >>The idea of " me " is a thought mistaken for a psychological entity > > >>which can be harmed and therefore must be protected. As if it was > > >>the body. But it is not a body, but a thought, connected to other > > >>thoughts, a thought-system, not necessary for the body/mind´s > > >>functioning. > > > > > >L.E: The problems is, that this thought-system IS necessary for the > > >body/mind's functioning until it possibly reaches a stage of > > development where it is > > >no longer needed like the shell of a lobster. Before that stage is > > reached > > >where it can be discarded, it is an essential and organic part of > > the organism, > > >body-brain-mind-self system. > > > > > >Larry Epston > > > > > > This is exactly what I wonder about. > > I wonder whether it is necessary at all. > > Or is it only necessary as the suffering seems necessary to be free > > from suffering? ;-) > > > > Len > > > > > L.E: My assumption is that the ego self is a natural outcome of brain, mind > environment relationships. As the baby human organism interacts with its > environment, the ego self develops and naturally grows. Then there are endless > variations. Sometimes the function get diseased, or distorted. > In others it > acts harmoniously with the organism. This would mean that the ego can be conflict-free, which I doubt. There is a part of ego: personal data with a practical function, which we need for communication, making appointments, finding back our house etc. But the ego as a psychological centre, as a self-image IS conflict. > As it grows through experience, a few may > develop a new interior as does the lobster, and it becomes possible to discard > or dissolve it. > Much of so-called spiritual life consists of various methods to get free of > the overdeveloped ego The effort to get free IS of the ego, so it won't help us to get rid of it. > self even as a lobster discards and eats its shell or a > snake wriggles out of its skin after great effort. > What do you think? > > Larry Epston I wonder whether we need that thing at all. We are conditioned to perpetuate it, to believe in it. Thought, which can be used for many meaningful purposes, constructed the self-image together with its defence system. What for? Ego might have been developed as a tool to dominate, as a kind of defence/attack system which can provide a good position in the hierarchy. Think of animals trying to make themselves look bigger. Or animals making terrible noise to impress and scare their enemies. So we could say that the ego does indeed have a protective function, the more I can impress you with my image, the more you will be scared of me, the more " safe " I will feel. The strange thing is though that when you don't use this defence system based on images – nothing bad happens. The opposite is even true, everything seems to go smoother, there is no fear, no conflict. It seems to me that we don't need ego anymore then we " need " psychological suffering. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.