ego is an illusion

[Guest guest]

Dear everyone,

 

I want to share with you an

excerpt from an interview with

Bannanje Govindacharya by

Andrew Cohen in the new issue

of "What is Enlightenment" with

the interesting theme "What is Ego?"

 

 

AC: In the West at this time, there's literally an explosion of

interest in Advaita philosophy, mainly due to the influence of

Ramana Maharshi, Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, H.W.L. Poonja

and Ramesh Balsekar. And there are also now a number of

Western teachers propagating the advaita or nondual teachings.

In Advaita, what is emphasized is the unreality of the world--

the unreality of manifest existence . And in that, what's being

stressed by many teachers is also the unreality of the ego .

Therefore, it is said that the sadhaka need not make any effort

to struggle against the negative ego in their pursuit of inner

freedom because the very object that they're trying to free

themselves from--the ego--is merely an illusion. The teaching

goes: Simply realize that the ego never existed and then live

happily in the knowledge of one's own inherent freedom.

 

Now my view on this is that it's only the rarest of rare realized

persons who could get away with saying such a thing--that the

ego is an illusion--and that therefore one need not make any

effort to liberate onself from its corrupting influence . Indeed, only

the rarest of rare individuals, someone like Ramana Maharshi or

Ajja, could say something that absolute, that outrageous, and

it actually be true . Why ? Because those rarest of rare beings

are already finished--their ego has been utterly destroyed, burnt

in the fire of spiritual experience until there was nothing left. But

to encourage a seeker who is very, very far away from that kind of

extraordinary attainment to presume that their ego is an illusion

appears to be a dubious form of instruction. In fact, it could be

dangerous in some cases because it opens the door for self-deception

and/or self-indulgence . The seeker could easily, under the guise

of enlightened understanding, abandon all effort to censor or control

impure motivations or tendencies that actually do exist within them.

In other words, "Well, the ego doesn't exist; everything is unreal,

so nothing really matters anyway ."

 

BG: Just to deny ego is of no consequence at all. If somebody

merely says that they have no ego, THAT is ego--that is the

greatest ego . "I don't have ego so I need not reject it" is a foolish

statement. Somebody who says, "I don't have ego," is at the

same time EXPRESSING his ego . This is against our experience .

It's just escapism through philosophy . These people say the ego

is false and not existent and that therefore they don't have to reject

it. But what is existent then? Does that mean everything is

nonexistent? Then why practice? Practice is nonexistent! If the

whole thing is false, if it doesn't exist, and if only the real essence

exists, then why practice? A REALIZED person can say that

they don't have ego because it is a self-ASSESSMENT; it is not

self-assertion. THEY can say it. But not ALL people can say

it. It is not a common, general statement.

 

You see, the problem is that in Advaita there is no acknowledgment

of individuality . Advaita says that all is only one ATMAN [self].

But Advaita is just a certain sect in India; it's not the whole of Indian

philosophy . In fact, Shankara, who lived in the seventh century, was

the only major Indian philosopher who preached Advaita . Later

philosophers--Ramanuja, Bhaskara, Nimbarka, Madhva--everybody

condemns Shankara . Nobody accepts him. But nowadays, Advaita

has become a fashion.

 

 

Any comment?

 

Peace,

 

KKT

[Guest guest]

Hello KKT,

 

What is Advaita?

 

I have tried to read and understand about people talking about it, and

still did understood what they where talking about.

 

A comment,

 

Antoine

 

Dear everyone,I want to share with you anexcerpt from an interview

withBannanje Govindacharya byAndrew Cohen in the new issueof "What is

Enlightenment" withthe interesting theme "What is Ego?"AC: In the

West at this time, there's literally an explosion ofinterest in

Advaita philosophy, mainly due to the influence ofRamana Maharshi,

Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, H.W.L. Poonjaand Ramesh Balsekar. And

there are also now a number ofWestern teachers propagating the

advaita or nondual teachings.In Advaita, what is emphasized is the

unreality of the world--the unreality of manifest existence . And in

that, what's being stressed by many teachers is also the unreality of

the ego .Therefore, it is said that the sadhaka need not make any

effortto struggle against the negative ego in their pursuit of

innerfreedom because the very object that they're trying to

freethemselves from--the ego--is merely an illusion. The

teachinggoes: Simply realize that the ego never existed and then

livehappily in the knowledge of one's own inherent freedom.Now my

view on this is that it's only the rarest of rare realizedpersons who

could get away with saying such a thing--that theego is an

illusion--and that therefore one need not make anyeffort to liberate

onself from its corrupting influence . Indeed, onlythe rarest of rare

individuals, someone like Ramana Maharshi orAjja, could say something

that absolute, that outrageous, andit actually be true . Why ?

Because those rarest of rare beingsare already finished--their ego

has been utterly destroyed, burntin the fire of spiritual experience

until there was nothing left. Butto encourage a seeker who is very,

very far away from that kind of extraordinary attainment to presume

that their ego is an illusionappears to be a dubious form of

instruction. In fact, it could bedangerous in some cases because it

opens the door for self-deceptionand/or self-indulgence . The seeker

could easily, under the guiseof enlightened understanding, abandon

all effort to censor or controlimpure motivations or tendencies that

actually do exist within them.In other words, "Well, the ego doesn't

exist; everything is unreal,so nothing really matters anyway ."BG:

Just to deny ego is of no consequence at all. If somebodymerely says

that they have no ego, THAT is ego--that is thegreatest ego . "I don't

have ego so I need not reject it" is a foolishstatement. Somebody who

says, "I don't have ego," is at thesame time EXPRESSING his ego . This

is against our experience .It's just escapism through philosophy .

These people say the egois false and not existent and that therefore

they don't have to rejectit. But what is existent then? Does that

mean everything is nonexistent? Then why practice? Practice is

nonexistent! If thewhole thing is false, if it doesn't exist, and if

only the real essenceexists, then why practice? A REALIZED person can

say that they don't have ego because it is a self-ASSESSMENT; it is

not self-assertion. THEY can say it. But not ALL people can sayit.

It is not a common, general statement.You see, the problem is that in

Advaita there is no acknowledgmentof individuality . Advaita says

that all is only one ATMAN [self].But Advaita is just a certain sect

in India; it's not the whole of Indianphilosophy . In fact, Shankara,

who lived in the seventh century, wasthe only major Indian philosopher

who preached Advaita . Laterphilosophers--Ramanuja, Bhaskara,

Nimbarka, Madhva--everybodycondemns Shankara . Nobody accepts him.

But nowadays, Advaitahas become a fashion.Any comment?Peace,KKT

[Guest guest]

Dear Antoine,

 

<<

carrea (Antoine Carré)

 

Hello KKT,

 

What is Advaita?

 

I have tried to read and understand about people talking about it,

and still did understood what they where talking about.

 

A comment,

 

Antoine

>>

 

KKT: Some essential points about Advaita

(a + dvaita = without + dualism):

 

(1) There is only one Ultimate Reality

which is Pure Consciousness or Atman

or Brahman.

 

(2) The world (phenomenal existence)

is only an illusion (Maya).

 

(3) The ego is also an illusion.

 

I found an interesting definition of Advaita at:

 

http://www.sentient.org/amber/advaita.htm

 

============

 

What is Advaita

 

Advaita means 'non-duality'. Non-duality means....

 

We see lightness and darkness,

We hear sound and silence,

We feel pleasure and pain,

We taste sweetness and sourness,

We smell odour and freshness,

We know good and bad,

We experience in differences.

 

All are subjective. All we see, hear, feel, taste, smell, know, experience,

....

we interpret as objects, where we ourselves are subject.

 

But what if this ultimate duality - of subject and object - is false?

What if there is no experiencer? Or thing experienced?

No subject; no object. Then all that remains is subjectivity or

put another way, consciousness.

 

We are concerned too much perhaps with what we are conscious of,

and forget the miracle of consciousness itself.

 

A small change - to look toward the source of the Light,

rather than at a movie on the screen that is illuminated by that Light.

 

===============

 

A very illuminating explanation?

 

Hope this helps :-)

 

KKT

[Guest guest]

Hello KKT,

 

<< KKT: Some essential points about Advaita

(a + dvaita = without + dualism):

 

(1) There is only one Ultimate Reality

which is Pure Consciousness or Atman

or Brahman.

 

(2) The world (phenomenal existence)

is only an illusion (Maya).

 

(3) The ego is also an illusion. >>

 

Antoine: some say that ego is a starting point.

So, in a way, this last statement would mean that they are no starting

point.

It's only an illusion.

 

<< I found an interesting definition of Advaita at:

 

http://www.sentient.org/amber/advaita.htm

 

============

 

(Snipping good stuff ...)

 

A small change - to look toward the source of the Light,

rather than at a movie on the screen that is illuminated by that Light.

 

=============== >>

 

Where is the change?

 

<< A very illuminating explanation?

 

Hope this helps :-)

 

KKT >>

 

Always,

 

Antoine