not on ego

[Guest guest]

"Ego" can be quite an issue for discussions as there are several definitions

for it. Perhaps it is more appropriate to leave "ego" for what is or isn't

and restate the matter: As long as the witness state can exist, there is

duality. This means one can be a witness of what one is doing, thoughts and

emotions. "Goal" of all practice is to terminate duality; it is impossible

to convey "how it is without" but apart from that it will show in one's use

of language.

 

In "life as usual" one is the doer of actions and the enjoyer of the

results.

 

"The "I" has the "choice" between activity (being the doer) or passivity

(the witness, the I AM). Yet some principle will be responsible for thoughts

and actions. So performing duties is done without expecting results and / or

as a service (to God). Not expecting is the effort. Being the mere witness

of thoughts and emotions is an effort too. What is more, these

"inactivities" are not states of indifference and in dealing with relatives

and friends one has to be genuine (no doer or witness); sometimes this is

impossible as being the witness can become one's "normal" state.

 

For an artist who is performing, there is oneness of performer and the work

of art being performed or created. If the artist is thinking "now I am

creating a fourth scale harmony", the attention isn't fully on the job. So

there is no witness; it is art being done. It is a state of complete

surrender of individuality; one just isn't conscious of it and yet one will

observe an "aftertaste" of bliss, that would be natural when individuality

(the sense of I am the doer) is gone.

 

In trivial work like doing the dishes one has the choice, either observing

thoughts, emotions and the dishes being done, or being fully concentrated on

the job despite its triviality and then it is surrender. Work is never

pleasant or unpleasant; it is one's interpretation that makes it that way.

 

Jan