Analysis of the Mind -5

[Guest guest]

The Essence of Ego

 

The essence of our lives seems to be centered on our

ego. Ego is the driving factor for success according

western way of thinking. Without ego we cannot

survive, is the understanding of the many. Unless we

understand what ego stands for, we can neither

understand how our mind functions nor we can

understand how we function in this life. Most of the

western psychoanalysts identify the conscious mind as

the ego. According to Vedanta, ego is only a notion of

individuality in the mind, wherein ¡®I am¡¯ is

identified with ¡®this is¡¯ resulting in ¡®I am

this¡¯. There is a fundamental human error involved

in the equation ¡®I am = This¡¯. The error arises in

mixing two diagonally opposite entities; a conscious

entity, ¡®I am¡¯, with an inert entity, ¡®this is¡¯,

in generating a notional entity called ¡®ego¡¯ or

individual ¡®I¡¯. This is called error of

superimposition (adhyaasa), wherein qualities of

something other than ¡®I am¡¯ are superimposed on ¡®I

am¡¯. ¡®I am¡¯ is the basis or substantive, changeless

or independent variable, while ¡®this is¡¯ is a

superimposition, which continuously changes as

¡®this¡¯ that I identify with changes. Normally, when

I refer to myself as ¡®this is I¡¯, ¡®this is

myself¡¯, the ¡®self¡¯ that ¡®I am¡¯ is identified

with the ¡®ego¡¯. Hence ego, for all practical

purposes is the ¡®self¡¯ that I am, and it is neither

pure consciousness nor totally inert entity. We have

mentioned before that mind is made up of subtle matter

different from physical gross matter. Subtle matter is

still a matter and therefore mind is essentially

inert. Hence mind can be objectified as ¡®this¡¯. Any

object is, in principle, an inert entity. Mind being

inert is an object of study by psychoanalysts as well

as psychologists. While we stated that ego is one of

the components of the mind, it has a peculiarity of it

own that differs from the rest of the mind. Although

mind is inert, ego partly rests on the conscious

entity, ¡®I am¡¯. When I claim that I am an

individual, egotistically I am separating or diverging

myself as a separate entity in relation to other

individuals and the rest of the universe. I am ¡®so

and so¡¯ when I introduce myself as a separate

individual, the ¡®so and so¡¯ is the inert part that I

am identifying with. I am an individual separate from

other things and beings. That exclusivity of myself

from the rest of the universe happens in the mind or

with the mind as ¡®I am this¡¯ and ¡®this is mine¡¯.

This exclusivity is the basis of the survival of the

ego involving separation of ¡®I am not that¡¯ and

¡®that is not mine¡¯. Thus, ego tries to find its

identification, by inclusion and exclusion of ¡®this¡¯

from ¡®that¡¯ or ¡®mine¡¯ from ¡®yours¡¯. Ego,

therefore, involves the notion of an individual

identifying with myself, a conscious entity, that

takes the role of a doer, knower, enjoyer, sufferer,

etc., on which the inert entity, ¡®this is¡¯, is

superimposed. Only a conscious entity can be a doer,

knower, enjoyer, sufferer, etc. An unconscious entity

cannot claim the doer-ship or enjoyer-ship. It is the

ego that claims the doer-ship, knower-ship,

enjoyer-ship, etc. Is this ¡®true or false¡¯ has to be

established? From our point, ego seems to be at the

gateway with one side being a conscious entity, the

individual ¡®I¡¯, the self that I am, and on the other

side the inert entity, where ¡®this¡¯ stands for are

all my mental cognitions or mental states. Any

¡®this¡¯ stands for objects perceived by the mind or

objects known by cognitive process by the mind. It

includes the tangible as well intangible objects. We

have not understood the process how cognition or

knowledge of external objects takes place in the mind

or with the mind. This will be discussed in detail

later when we deal with epistemological issues

involving the mind.

 

The most important point of interest from the analysis

of the mind is that it appears to show a dualistic

nature; one side a conscious entity and the other side

an unconscious entity or subject-object duality.

Interestingly, it is worth to note that the dualistic

nature seems to be the fundamental to all

manifestations in nature, wherein we connect two

seemingly unrelatable entities into one. The 20th

century scientists became familiar for the first time

with dualistic nature of the matter; its wave form

through de Broglie's wave length, and its particle

form as atoms and molecules, etc, culminating in

Einstein¡¯s famous equation E = mc2, where ¡®c¡¯ the

velocity of the electromagnetic wave, forming the

connecting link between matter and energy. Through

these equations we learn that energy is matter in

motion or matter is energy localized. From Vedantic

perspective, both energy and matter are inert and thus

grouped under one as matter only, although energy is

more subtle than gross matter. Vedanta goes even one

step further in establishing the ultimate dualistic

nature involving consciousness on one side and matter

on the other. Ego represents a symbolic equation of

the two denoting I am = this. Matter can be

considered as consciousness in apparent motion or

perturbation in consciousness. It is cognized as a

¡®thought¡¯ (vRitti) in the mind, which actually is

¡®an apparent¡¯ movement of consciousness or like

¡®thought wave¡¯, a perturbation in the ocean of

consciousness. Mind is defined as a flow of thoughts

(vRitti dhaara) as mentioned earlier. Movement of

thought is analogous to motion of a wave in the ocean

of consciousness. Wave is nothing but ocean itself

with superficial surface perturbation; hence it is not

different from ocean. Similarly the thought wave is

superficial movement of consciousness; hence not

different from consciousness. We can deduce

figuratively from this that mind, which is a basis for

the flow of thoughts, can be thought of as

crystallization of consciousness in motion. We will

arrive at this independently by looking at the

creation at macro scale and at micro scale (as in

dream world). Thus apparent or experiential dualities

are inherent natural expressions of all

manifestations, as Vedanta declares. This is the

secret of creation too, says Vedanta. Individual ego

represents the essence of creation, but at a micro

scale. Ego manifests with the equation of

consciousness with matter. Consciousness cannot be

equated with matter, yet this appears to be happening

in the apparent duality of the world. When a subtle

wave form of ¡®energy¡¯ is equated to gross ¡®mater¡¯,

we brought in a fundamental constant ¡®c¡¯, velocity

of light, as the connecting link. This equation is

simpler, since ontologically both energy and matter

are inert. However, in equating the consciousness

with matter, we have an impossible situation, since

they are diagonally opposite entities; one is

consciousness and the other is inert matter. We need a

connecting entity that makes this impossible link

possible. That connecting link is called ¡®maayaa¡¯,

which can be considered as a type of force (shakti)

that makes the equation possible. There is no exact

translation for the word ¡®maayaa¡¯ although it is

translated as ¡®illusion¡¯. Any force is only

recognized by its effects. Maayaa is that force

because of which consciousness, which is one without a

second, appears as many. It is like one gold appearing

as many varieties of ornaments, since gold has that

potential to become many. Force is a potential

manifested as action. Therefore maaya is defined as

that which makes impossible possible (aghaTita

ghaTanaa paTiiyasii maayaa). There is no separate

proof for its existence than the very manifestation of

one into many.

 

We utilize this force all the time without realizing

it. For example, when I sleep, my mind projects a

dream world of plurality consisting of many beings and

objects. Thus waking mind has the potential to appear

as many in the dream. If I am dreaming as a fireman

putting out the fire of a huge building using a hose

and water, while you are all watching as spectators

in my dream commenting, criticizing, complementing,

etc, as a dreamer I experience all that dream world of

plurality as real made up of objects and beings. In

fact, I, as a dreamer while dreaming, do not even

think that it is a dream. ¡®I am¡¯ there very much in

the dream as one of the subjects in the dream,

identifying with a body, mind and intellect that is

separate from the other bodies, minds and intellects.

In fact, I, with my tiny dream mind, see the dream

world as if it is outside my tiny dream-mind. However,

the whole dream world of plurality is inside the

waker¡¯s mind. The power by which a waker¡¯s mind is

able to project many things and beings in the world of

dream is maayaa. Any change in movement is a force.

The proof of the maayaa is the dream world itself

arising from one entity, waker¡¯s mind, which in turn

is supported by consciousness. Only a conscious

entity can dream. Hence mind being inert entity cannot

itself dream unless supported by a conscious entity

that I am. In fact, mind cannot exist without ¡®I

am¡¯. For a dreamer, all the dream transactions are

real, until he wakes up. The blazing fire of the

building, the hose, the water, and the fireman, as

well as the all spectators, each with their own

individual minds, are all real, as long as the dream

lasts. There are sentient beings as well insentient

things in the dream world. Only when awaken from the

dream, the whole dream world merges into the waker¡¯s

mind. In fact, the dream world arises from the

waker¡¯s mind, sustained by the mind and goes back

into the mind. Was the matter that was created in the

dream real or imaginary? It is real from the point of

dreamer but appears to be unreal from the point of

waker. The dream water cannot wet my bed in the waking

world, although it can put out the fire in the dream.

If the bed is wet, it is not from the dream water.

Thus the reality of the dream depends on the

reference; waker thinks it is unreal, while the

dreamer thinks it is real.

 

Vedanta looks at the dream world, compares with the

waking world and shows parallelism between the two.

From the Vedantic perspective, both worlds are not

real. They are not unreal either, since they are being

experienced. Unreal like horns of a rabbit cannot be

experienced. Real is defined as that which remains

the same at all times. In both dream world and the

waking world, what remains the same is myself, I am,

only taking different roles in each world. Hence ¡®I

am¡¯ alone is real. It is the waker¡¯s mind supported

by the consciousness that ¡®I am¡¯ is projecting the

world of plurality of beings and objects in the dream.

¡®I am¡¯ there in the dream world (in the above

example playing the role of a fireman). Thus creation

of the dream world became possible with the

combination of consciousness entity ¡®I am¡¯ with

inert entity ¡®this is¡¯, which is the essence of ego

too. Maayaa, therefore, is that power that makes this

equation possible. In the case of the dream world, I

have the power to create that dream world, although

the kind of dream that I dream is not known a priori.

My dreaming as a fireman must be the result of some

suppressed desires of wanting to become a fireman that

could not have been fulfilled in my waking state.

These desires are exhausted in my dream, so that my

mind is now free from these suppressed desires, so

that it can act fresh. Thus dreams are exhausting

mechanisms provided by nature for cleansing the mind.

Vedanta says the waking world is not much different,

as we shall see later.

 

Coming back to our basics, when I equate myself as

¡®this¡¯, creation or separation of an individual

¡®I¡¯ essentially has occurred. We attributed this

identification as result of dualistic nature of the

mind where subject and object thoughts, both arise in

the mind, where there is the possibility for an error

involving identification of subject, I, with object,

¡®this¡¯. This is an error, because I am not

¡®this¡¯. Yet, I take my self as ¡®I am this¡¯, says

Vedanta, only because I do not know that I am pure

conscious-being, without any ¡®this¡¯ attached. Being

means existing. Thus Vedanta says I am pure

existence-consciousness. I cannot add any more

qualification to ¡®I am¡¯ since anything that is

qualified is an object and not a subject. Only

objects have qualifications. ¡®I am¡¯ always is a

subject and not an object. I cannot objectify myself.

Therefore conceptualized ¡®I am¡¯ is not I am, since I

am not a concept. ¡®I am¡¯ is a fact. In the equation

¡®I am this¡¯, I am trying to objectify myself as

¡®this¡¯ with qualifications. This happens because,

when I do not know who I am, I take myself to be other

than who I am. Thus ¡®I am this¡¯ error arises in my

mind because of my self-ignorance or ignorance of my

true nature, says Vedanta.

 

This error of superimposition can occur only if there

is some common ground between the conscious entity,

¡®I am¡¯ and the inert entity ¡®this is¡¯. The common

ground between ¡®I am¡¯ and ¡®this is¡¯ is the

¡®Existence¡¯ itself. ¡®Am¡¯ in the ¡®I am¡¯ denotes

my existence, and ¡®is¡¯ in ¡®this is¡¯ denotes its

existence. The divergent parts between the two are

consciousness on one side and inertness on the other.

¡®I¡¯ denotes a conscious entity and ¡®this¡¯ denotes

an inert entity, since ¡®this¡¯ is an object of my

knowledge. Even though ¡®I am = this is¡¯ is an

invalid equation and can never be true, it is taking

place as evident in all our transactions in the world.

In fact, no transaction can ever be possible without

this identification. All transactions involve ¡®I am

this¡¯ and ¡®this is mine¡¯ notion, which is ego. I

cannot even introduce myself by just saying ¡®I am¡¯

without adding any ¡®so and so¡¯ to it. Without ego,

no one can transact in the world. Then, where is the

problem, if I can only transact with this notion that

¡®I am this¡¯, and no transaction can be possible

otherwise.

 

The core of the human problem rests on this and

solution to this problem also rests in correct

understanding of the problem. If I know as a fact

that I am a conscious-existent entity and not ¡®this¡¯

that I identify with, except for transactional

purposes since I have no other choice, then there is

no problem. It is like enjoying the sun rise and sun

set, knowing the fact very well that sun neither rises

or sets. Or a more appropriately, it is similar to

actor playing a role in a drama. I am an actor

playing the role of a beggar in a drama and getting

paid millions for that action. I can play the role

beautifully and enjoy the play, knowing well that I am

not really a beggar and in fact I am going to

accumulate more millions because of that action. If I

really think that I am a beggar, forgetting that I am

actor playing that role, then the drama becomes

miserable. Firmly rooted in my understanding that I am

an unqualified existence-consciousness, but playing

the drama of life taking different roles in life, son,

husband, father, friend, employee, citizen, etc

understanding very well that I am none of the above-

then the game of life becomes beautiful drama- comedy

or tragedy ¨C but fun to play with. There is only one

ball, but both teams go for it, then only it is a

sport. One will win and the other looses, yet that is

fun. Why do we have to play ¨C there is no cause for

play other than fun. Play is natural; even a cat

plays with a ball. There is no ¡®why¡¯ for a play. Win

or loose, playing is fun. Loosing to a strong time is

more fun than winning over a mediocre team. Hence

many philosophers call creation as play of the Lord

(leelaa vibhuuti), since there cannot be a reason for

play other than that it is fun. However, if you ask

¡®why should the Lord play at my expense?¡¯, then you

are inquiring deeper into the truth or secret of

creation.

 

It is ¡®I¡¯ that is playing the drama of life taking

different roles. If I do not know how to play or do

not know the rules of the game, then play becomes

miserable. There is where the human problem and human

suffering rest. When I transact with the world as ¡®I

am this¡¯ not knowing my true nature and taking

¡®this¡¯ as my real self, then all problems will

arise. It is similar to an actor behaving like a king

outside the drama, not knowing that the role of the

king that he is playing is only for that particular

scene. We have to put him in asylum before he starts

ordering everybody around as a king. Roles will have

problems, since that is part of the drama. However, if

I start taking the problems of the roles as my

problems, then it will become a serious problem.

 

When I do not know ¡®Who I am?¡¯, and take myself to

be really ¡® I am this¡¯ that I identify with will

create problems. This is a fundamental human problem,

since it is the basis for all human suffering. The

basic reason is any ¡®this¡¯ is limited, since

¡®this¡¯ is not ¡®that¡¯ or does not include ¡®that¡¯.

All ¡®this that I have¡¯ becomes what I am due to

this error of identification. Hence, when I take

myself as ¡®I am this¡¯, the limitations of ¡®this¡¯

become my limitations. No one likes to be limited.

Intrinsically everyone wants to be unlimited, since

that seems to be my nature. Limitlessness is freedom

from all limitations. Everybody wants to be free,

free from any dependence on other than oneself.

Therefore every effort is made to make ¡®this¡¯ that I

have as big as possible, to make it limitless. Thus

¡®more I have¡¯ becomes a means to become ¡®more I

am¡¯. Ego wants to survive at any cost by becoming

bigger and bigger. It is never happy or contended with

what it has, since whatever it has is limited and not

limitless. Hence wanting to have more becomes the

fundamental survival mode for the ego. Ego also

survives by excluding others. Exclusions become more

evident by complaining, criticizing, fighting, etc.

All the negative emotions that get crystallized in our

transactions are means for survival of ego. All

desires involving, I and I want, are expressions of

the Ego. If I cannot get what I want, then I

complain. I am angry if others get what I want. I

complain and I criticize. When two people meet, they

will be complaining about the third person. Fear comes

from the second person and politics comes with the

third person.

 

A mind that is contended and free from ego-centric

desires is not the mind that is conducive for the

survival of the ego. On the other hand, ego survives

in having a mind that is always longing for something

or the other. ¡®I want this and this and this..¡¯

becomes the song of the ego, from birth to death. It

always wants to want and never satisfied with what it

has, until it has everything. Everything means

infinite. One cannot gain infinite by adding finite

things. Yet, ¡®longing to become infinite¡¯ seams to

be inherent in all beings, as the fundamental struggle

for freedom. Ego can never become infinite, since

¡®this¡¯ part of the ego in ¡®I am this¡¯ is always

finite. Yet longing to become infinite never ceases.

Hence human life becomes a constant struggle to become

¡®something¡¯ which one cannot become. When I realize

that ¡®I am not this¡¯, which Vedanta capitalizes its

teaching as ¡®not this¡¯, ¡®not this¡¯, suggesting to

drop all identifications with all ¡®this¡¯, what is

left behind is pure ¡®I am¡¯ without any

qualifications or identifications. That I am is pure

existence-consciousness, which by nature is limitless

too, since existence has to be infinite, and

consciousness that I am is not different from

existence. It is not that I become infinite, ¡®I am ¡Ô

infinite¡¯, says Vedanta; and infinite cannot be

pointed as ¡®this¡¯. Note the identity equation

symbolized by ¡Ô, instead of an equal sign, indicating

infiniteness is my intrinsic nature, called in

Sanskrit as swaruupa lakshanam. Hence the inherent

struggle to become infinite by gaining this or that is

only a reflection of gaining my own true nature. I

cannot gain my own true nature, since it is already my

true nature. Infinite need not have to become

infinite, since it is already infinite. However, if I

¡®think¡¯ that I am finite and try to become infinite,

we have a peculiar problem ¨C we are creating a

problem where there is no problem. There cannot be any

real solution to this problem. Only valid solution to

this kind of problem is only to recognize that there

is no problem to start with. Hence understanding my

true nature, that is knowing ¡®who I am¡¯, is the only

solution for problems generated by mistaking my self

to be ¡®this¡¯ or ¡®that¡¯, something other than

myself. Hence, recognition of the invalidity of the

equation, I am=this, is the solution to the problem.

The solution looks very simple, since I know I can

never be ¡®this¡¯ ¨C subject ¡®I¡¯ is different from

object ¡®this¡¯. Yet, it appears to be very difficult,

like trying to win over by real fighting with an

imaginary ghost.

 

The difficulty arises if we ask further in terms of

who is trying to realize ¡®Who I am?¡¯ ¨C Is it the

ego or is it pure ¡®I am¡¯, since we have only two

components. Pure ¡®I am¡¯ is already infinite

existence-consciousness and there is nothing to

realize ¨C other than just BE what it is. (Actually

we are using words which are finite by nature and do

not even describe that ¡®what I am¡¯ stands for. Hence

Vedanta says ¨Cfinite words or mind cannot reach but

return back¨C yatho vaacho nivartante apraapya manasaa

saha). Infinite cannot be described ¨C even the word

infinite is only a negative description, that it is

not finite. Hence from the point of I am, there is

nothing to reach, nothing to describe, nothing to

acquire, no where to go ¨C other than saying ¡®I am

that I am¡¯, which is not saying anything substantial.

So ¡®I am¡¯ need not have to realize since it is

already ¡®I am¡¯. Does ego has to realize that I am

not this? Ego cannot realize ¡®I am not this¡¯ since

its essence is I am= this. For it, ¡®not this¡¯

becomes another ¡®this¡¯ only, meaning we tend to

conceptualize ¡®not this¡¯ as another ¡®this¡¯. Then,

what is the solution? Solution therefore is in clear

understanding that Ego cannot realize, and ¡®I am¡¯

need not realize, but only discarding my identity with

ego and claiming my eternal nature that I am. That is

just shifting my gears or my vision. This is the

essence of meditation. That involves reducing the

reality that I associate with the ego only to

transactional reality, and claming my eternal reality

as existence-consciousness that I am. Then what

happens to I am as I am? I remain as I am, that

eternal ever existent consciousness that I am, but now

realize that the only transaction utility of the ego

is in playing the game of life, as it should be

played. It is now like an actor, who knows who he is,

but still playing the drama of life knowing very well

that the drama is not real but only for fun or

entertainment. The drama script has not changed, the

roles have not changed, the problems of the roles

still remain, but only thing that changes is my

attitude towards the problem of the roles. I play the

roles more effectively and beautifully to my

satisfaction without any regrets and without any

complaints, since it is fun to play. I can even change

the script to the degree possible or select the roles

that I can play better. Since I have already entered

the stage of life to play different roles, I might as

well play the roles that are given for the benefit of

the others, who also have entered the scene to play

their roles. Life is a drama involving many players

and many scenes and one has to play the game as long

as one is on the stage of life. Best way to play is

not to forget that you are an actor and the play is

only a drama and for fun or entertainment. Here

playing itself is the entertainment. How good you

play, how satisfyingly you play the given scenes is

all that matters.

-----------------

[Guest guest]

H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

 

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

 

Dear Sri Sadananada,

 

A brilliant and scholarly analysis indeed!

 

I have small request to make to you. Please tell which

means/instrument was used for analysing the mind. Was mind used or

some other means/instrument was used?

If I observe the functioning of the mind then I am the observer

and the mind is the observed one . The observed one points to the

observer.If the goal is to know the true nature of the observer,

which is the lakshya of a mumukshu/jij~jAsu, what is the benefit of

knowing the details and analysis of the obserbed one Viz.mind?

These were some of the thoughts passed through and are being

shared with you.

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy

[Guest guest]

PraNAms to everybody.

 

For some reason some of the format used in the word

file did not come properly when copied and posted.

 

I think it is possible to unravel the changed format

if one is patient.

 

Here is one example:

 

There is a fundamental human error involved

> in the equation ¡®I am = This¡¯. \

The statement is - There is a fundamental human error

involved in the equation " I am = This " .

 

 

The quotation marks came out funny. Since these are

used extensively to demark the text, it may not be

impossible to read. For those who want to have correct

port I can send the word file directly if you request

in a private mail.

..

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda.