Ego

I read a lot lot about “EGO” in this forum. I wanted to open this thread to get more detailed opinions from so many of you experts on this topic because I am really not sure if I understand this as much as I would like to. Please forgive me if you find this thread not composed properly. I really do not have a background on writing.

So I read all the time “ego” is not right. For example when I merely asked what is the maximum time one should do headstand I was told in some way that why do I want to do it to maximum. When I asked in this forum about “urine neti” :slight_smile: I again had some of you wonderful members asking me why I want to do it. When I asked about how should I progress and be able to do all advanced yoga asanas. Again the same thing. When I asked about meeting my goals of doing “chakrasana” I again was slapped with comments and advice like why I want to do it. It is somethingt very advanced and I should not attempt it without proper guru.

All the above are examples of me wanting to achive something…and for what? Well honestly speaking I don’t know. But I do know I feel proud to be able to do headstand especially becuase it is a difficult pose and not a lot of people can do it as easily as I do it. Obviously this is “Ego” But I wonder whats wrong about it? Don’t you all feel the same way in some form? Also when I see some books and videos on some people doing some advanced yoga poses expecially in competiion videos, I want to be like this. I believe this is also “Ego” Is this wrong? Does this make me a bad person? I wonder the passion and desire to be like them is a good thing. I believe I have a very strong passion and desire to meet many goals I have about yoga and many things in life. The only reason I could achieve them is becuase I wanted to be like somebody that I was not. It does seem like “ego” but then whats wrong about it? Why is it considered bad or negative or evil sometimes? I sometimes wonder if I could have done anything in life at all without the desire of achieving something.

So I am asking how can anybody do aonything in life without the so called “ego” factor involved in some way.

Regards

The term ego is borrowed from psychology.

It is a common view among many yoga practitioners that the ego is bad. This is not so simple. A strong ego is very important in life, but we need to realize that just as physical strenght can be used both to build and to destroy, the strenght of one’s ego can be also percieved as good or bad.

But what is this ego, anyway ?

In anthroposophy, what I study, the ego is described as the fourth element of the human being, beside the physical, vital, mental (astral) bodies. What these terms cover exactly would take more space to explain, and this classificiation is but one, as it is further detailed into a seven and ninefold classification.
The physical body is what we have in common with the mineral kingdom, the vital one is what we have common with plants, the astral is common with animals, and the ego is only a human characteristic. This classification is only true from an external, worldly point of view, because animals, plants and even minerals have egos, but these are not of this world. Only the human being carries his/her ego in the boundary of his physical body. Animals have group souls, and the whole relations of their bodily constituents are different. For example, in case of ordinary human beings, the vital body (called also “etheric”) is entirely inside the boundaries of their physical body. In case of mammals this is not true, their vital bodies extend especially in the head area, and their ego, a group ego is actually outside. When shamans of various nations talk about animal-spirits, they talk about these group egos. These are existent, just as real as real for me is the existence of Pandara, Bentinho, or Yalgaar. This is true for plants, too, although they lack astral bodies - meaning that they do not have astral constituents of their own, but they are permeated and fertilized by a cosmic astrality. It would take a lot of time and effort to know these things, all I want to say, that a personal ego, as bases of individuality, personality is the result a long evolution throughout many ages and planetary “incarnations”, and not something to easily be discarded.

We have this ego, and the clear daytime consciousness, what says: I am. We have an ego, now, what can we do with it ? Surely, the ego can be easily related to selfishness, and all assertions of yoga philosophy are true about it’s nature. Yet, eastern wisdom has been born when it was easier to shed the ego than transmuting it into a spiritual self - today it must be clear that the general evolution of humanity is not directed towards the disollution of ego. Transcendence does not equal elimination.

Just do what you do, and trust your own karma. It guides you quite well, I assure you.

Well, you need to be clear about the distinction between ego and egotism.

In case of mammals this is not true, their vital bodies extend especially in the head area, and their ego, a group ego is actually outside.

In my opinion, this is absolute nonsense. I wish that you would not post this stuff here, Hubert. Someone might get the impression that it has something to do with yoga.

I think I was clear about what teaching this belongs to.
I am sorry to abuse your and others’ receptivity with my nonsense.

Indeed, I went too far.

2 egos are clashing right now. Hubert I would be interested if there are some communities that have a more group ego than others.

yalgaar – I have a primary concern when I caution myself and others against our egos, and that is this: that we do not treat the present moment only as a means to a possible future. The gift of Time is that we get it in small packages, each called “Now”. Any given ‘now’ could be sorrowful or silly or majestic or. . . there are so many possibilities, that we ought not be content to make each moment only useful.
To put this in context, I only know of you what I remember of your various postings on this forum. That’s certainly not a lot, so I hope you don’t take this posting as an informed opinion about who you are. Really, it’s just what I need to keep in mind when I battle ego.

Dear Yalgaar,

In my humble opinion I don’t think ego is per se good or bad, I think ego is always neutral, but it is how we as humans colour ego that gives rise to the perception of good or bad.

Anyway, ego for me is like a wind, we cannot see a wind, but we can see the effects of that wind once it has passed through a certain area. Some winds are light breezes and they are wonderful in the sense that they clear the sky and they cool us down and they might bring a wonderful light rain storm that refresh and revitalise. However, some winds are strong and destructive, they destroy in their anger everything in their way and they create more fear and anger and frustration in us due to their unpredictability. The same with out egos. The problem is usually that that light wind can become a destructive force so unnoticeable and it is only once it has destroyed everything that we realise it and then it is too late, therefore the many warnings by all the weather stations on this Forum to check that wind of yours. :slight_smile:

About the desire to reach a certain stage etc. There has been a heated discussuion on this Forum about the difference between desire and motivation and I don’t want to go into that again here, perhaps you can search for it. But there is a difference personally for me between replacing one’s desires with a motivation to do or to reach a certain goal or something.

Dear Asuri,

To simply state that something is absolute nonsense is a right on this Forum, but in order for the rest of us to learn something from such a statement, perhaps you can qualify it and state your view on it, in that way we get different views and opinions and your statement has then some value to us and others who may come after us and read this.

Hello Yalgaar and all. This is my first post after “lurking” for several months but I see a couple friends here from other forums.

Concerning ego and yoga, I see nothing, “wrong” or “bad” in wanting to achieve, be the best, do your best, win the competition. It gives us goals to strive for, for some ,a reason to get up in the morning and does keep food on the table.

However, I wonder if the desire to achieve poses in yoga "because they are difficult "or “to be like somebody I am not” is DOING YOGA?

You are doing poses like the headstand as you stated for some of these reason, Others do headstands but do not call it Yoga, they call it gymnastics and they are very competitive. This is fine and good but to ME it is not Yoga. This is my opinion, only.

Asanas in yoga to me, are a stage ,a means, to other phases of yoga. They are a means to self understanding, not necessarily changing ones self but to achieving acceptance of oneself as you are.

So, I say, by all means do yoga poses and enjoy them for the goals you have stated. You may feel good about it and take pride in it. Those feelings are positive, they are sometimes joyous, there is nothing “wrong” in them but do not confuse them with the search for the yogic life.

I should say that doing asanas are for the reasons you have stated can be the beginning, they are an opening. As you progress you may well find your goals in doing them begin to change as you approach Yoga.Good luck to you!

[QUOTE=yalgaar;21855]
So I am asking how can anybody do aonything in life without the so called “ego” factor involved in some way.
[/QUOTE]

Ego (Ahamkara) would mean having bias over something (including our body) or someone over the other.

How can anybody do anything in life without the so called “ego”… yes it is impossible to be 100% neutral and unbiased.

But who asked you to do “anything in life without the so called ego” ? You probably are in grihastha stage of life, so enjoy your ego.

In my experience there is no ego. I do not mean that I have no ego and others do, I simply mean that the phenomenon we call Ego does not exist anywhere. There are just thoughts, emotions etc. And either they are there, or they are not. Both are just fine.

There is not one storage device for all of them which we call the Ego. That storage place does not exist. There is just awareness, and within that awareness there are different kind of thoughts, but they are just thoughts, expressions of awareness. They do not have an independent nature of their own. Therefore they do not have any power over us. It is only once we label them as good or bad or appropriate or inappropriate that we give it power.

Because when a thought comes up, we miss the fact that it is just a fluctuation of awareness within itself, and therefore we automatically assume: “Hey look at that thought which is saying “I” should be able to do this extreme yoga posture, because then “I” will feel good because I get praise from other people. That thought is there, so it must be something in and of itself, it has a power of its own. I am here, and the thought is over there, so there is a separation.”

But in actuality, if we look with more peace and awareness we will see that it has no power whatsoever. It is completely empty consciousness, completely pure as everything else is completely pure. But we start saying: “Oh that thought exists, so their must be an ego somewhere inside me that’s demanding all of these achievements for its own self gratification.”

This ego is simply non-existent. There are thoughts that Include “I” and “Me” and there is the thought of only “I”. but it just comes and goes like everything else. And it is always within and as awareness that it comes and goes. Not as some thing that exists in and of itself. It has no identity. It only gets an identity of its own and therefore power over us, if we appoint it an identity. If we instead just relax and let it come and go, we’ll see that they are completely empty of value.

So Ego is not bad nor good, nor does it exist as something. Nothing is bad or good, nor is anything neutral. All is just Awareness, God, Consciousness, Purity, Essence. To be free as this single presence of awareness and not appoint any value to anything that arise in our consciousness, means to be free immediately in every perception and circumstance.
[U]
[B]So Yalgaar:[/B][/U]

What you are looking for when you desire to “be like them”, or “be able to do that” is simply complete satisfaction, complete fulfillment. But as you might already have discovered, that is never going to happen through any means. You are already what you are. You are already pure awareness. Simply thinking this is not enough to bring about the experience of Self Realization or fulfillment. But if you acknowledge that there is nowhere to go and nowhere to reach and that nothing you’ll ever do will create an effect that fully satisfies you forever, than you will less likely be distracted by thoughts that arise like: “I want to reach this and that because then I will feel free and complete”

If you can see through these perceptions when they come up, and just remain aware of them without reacting to them in anyway, including not trying to get rid of them, but just let them be, these thoughts, feelings and desires, then you’ll see they have no meaning whatsoever. It is all peaceful awareness and you are already complete as you are.

The feeling of belonging to a group is not wrong, if one does not define himself entirely by this feeling. If we try to pick who is the more quilty of being more dependent on this feeling, we probably will fall prey to prejudice.

Just in case we find it helpful, I’ve created a new thread, Group Ego, where we can follow this vein independently.

There is nothing particularly ?wrong? with ego. It can be a very useful instrument for living in this world. If you want to practice asana like gymnastics or aerobics, that is fine. You need not worry about ego and you can put all of your ambition and desire into it. If you want to practice asana within the context of hatha yoga, then it?s a different story altogether. Hatha yoga and raja yoga are inseparable. Therefore, asana can be seen as one aspect of spiritual practice, the third step on the rung of classical yoga. Asana, pranayama, and the awakening of the kundalini combined even make hatha yoga a spiritual path in its own right. Walking the spiritual path of yoga, the realisation may dawn that the ego has its limitations. The ego?s grasping, ambition and desire can be seen in a different light. Then you can act with much less of the ?ego-factor? involved. Let me explain.

What is the ego or ego-sense? There is much confusion about it, even within one school of psychology. For our purposes, let us say that the ego is a function of the mind. It has two aspects. First, the ego is our inner instrument for organizing and controlling our experience: When I see a yoga mat, I am able to recognize it as such and do my asanas, in spite of feeling a bit lazy today. A strong ego denotes the capability of functioning effectively in the outer world, without being undermined by inner conflict. Second, the ego is an aspect of the mind that gives us the continuous and apparently trustworthy impression that ?I am?. When I get on the yoga mat, I always know that I am John and not Peter or Sally.

From a spiritual point of view, the ego is merely an activity of the mind. It is seen to be full of attachments and aversions; it is full of judgement and prejudice that color the world. The ego seeks pleasure and avoids pain. It is full of ambition and desire. The ego is forever [B]intentional [/B]and[B] grasping [/B](at things, thoughts, emotions and ideas) in order to create the impression of a [B]separate self[/B]. It is always about [B]? I?[/B] and always in the [B]doing[/B] [B]mode[/B]. (Buddhists point out that this self is by nature impermanent and without a separate existence of its own; therefore there is no self). When you look for this ego, you will not find it. Who thinks these thoughts? Who feels these feelings? Who is this ?I?? Looking for the answers, you will not find the ego, but you may find your true nature.

All spiritual traditions assert that there is another way of looking at the world, a broader view that encompasses the ego too. Let?s call it yoga, Big Mind, turiya (the fourth state), the Self or unity-consciousness. It is a state of greater awareness, it is [B]non-intentional[/B], and it is groundless and [B]boundless[/B] in the sense that it makes no separation. It is about ?[B]not-I[/B]? and in the [B]being mode[/B]. The fourth state is beyond separating the world into pairs of opposites, beyond ?right? and ?wrong?. The seer (subject) , the seen (object) and the process of seeing are one. The whole of creation is interdependent. Since the separation between the self and others is lifted, a greater sense of compassion may arise; call this Big Heart. You are perfect as you are. You can accept yourself as you are. There is no need for the grasping, the ambition, and the desire so characteristic of the ego. Be here, now!

On the spiritual path, it is possible to gradually free oneself of the ego-sense. Enlightenment is the experience of yoga. It is also the realization of yoga in our daily consciousness. The smaller ego is (gradually) infused by something larger than us. This allows us to act spontaneously, with more awareness and compassion, and with less attachment to the results. You truly can do everything in life with much less of the ?ego-factor? involved.

If you want to practice asana, rather than gymnastics or aerobics, then do so in the spirit of classical yoga. Look for stability and comfort by relaxing the effort. Relax both physical and mental effort. Use less than 70% of your muscle power. Use only those muscles necessary for the pose. Often, you will be able to relax your face and neck. Allow your breath to slow down. Do not make an effort to achieve results, free yourself of ambition. Just do your practice. Progress in asana is only made through consistent earnest practice and dispassionate non-attachment. Identify with something greater than yourself, your chosen ideal or the infinite breath of life. Gradually, you will find more poise and balance and you will be less distracted by the pairs of opposites, both physical (feelings of comfort and discomfort) and mental (praise and blame).

When you further incorporate pranayama and meditation into your practice you may eventually find your true nature ? the true nature that lies beyond the ego-mind that identifies itself with the vacillating waves of perception.

(I?m indebted to John Welwood for his discussion of ego and to Mukunda Stiles and Nico Tydeman for their teachings)

[QUOTE=yalgaar;21855]So I am asking how can anybody do aonything in life without the so called “ego” factor involved in some way.[/QUOTE]

Yalgaar, I don’t believe your queries are rooted in ego. Wanting to go deeper into any asana is natural progression to learning and gaining all the benefits from the posture/practice.

As I explore this thing called ‘yoga’, I find more and more areas to delve into. Is this ego? Is this bad? If it is, what does that say about the ones who beat the path in the first place?

[QUOTE=Pandara;21903]Dear Asuri,

To simply state that something is absolute nonsense is a right on this Forum, but in order for the rest of us to learn something from such a statement, perhaps you can qualify it and state your view on it, in that way we get different views and opinions and your statement has then some value to us and others who may come after us and read this.[/QUOTE]

Pandara,

Thank you for asking. First of all, if I was a little rough on Hubert, I apologize. I don’t want to engage in conflict with Hubert. I’m sure there are many who appreciate Hubert’s contributions, but I think its important to maintain the integrity of the forum.

My own views are derived from the teaching of Samkhya-Yoga, which I believe is essential to truly understand the subject. This is a little different from the Buddhist, as explained by Bentinho Massaro. And by the way I think it is important to point out that is the teaching of Buddhism, not Yoga. Samkhya-Yoga philosophy is similar to the school of psychology that Willem talked about, but it is a very ancient teaching, which makes its relevance all the more intriguing. I will try to present what I know of this in a few short posts.

[QUOTE=PatR;21914]Ego (Ahamkara) would mean having bias over something (including our body) or someone over the other.
[/QUOTE]

The term “Ahamkara” comes from Samkhya metaphysics. Samkhya was very influential in the ancient world. The metaphysics appear to be taken for granted in the Yoga Sutras and other traditions as well. Literally translated Ahamkara means “I-maker”. In the individual, its function is self-assumption, or what we call ego. In order to understand their concept, we need to understand more about the Samkhya metaphysics.

Samkhya conceived of creation as a sort of top-down evolution, as opposed to the modern bottom-up theory of evolution. The origin of the the material world was Prakriti. The first evolute of Prakriti is Mahat, also called Buddhi. Ahamkara evolves from Mahat, from Ahamkara evolves the the eleven indriyas and the five Tan-Matras: sound, color, form, taste, and smell. So we see that both the seer and the seen come from Ahamkara, which on a cosmic level, might be considered the equivalent of the Christ.

We still don’t have the whole picture though, because we need to understand the role of the gunas, sattva, rajas, and tamas in the evolution of Prakriti. Consider verse XXIII of the Samkhya Karika:
Ascertainment is Buddhi. Virtue, knowledge, dispassion and power are its manifestations partaking of sattva. Those partaking of tamas are the reverse of these [demerit, ignorance, passion, and weakness]
In this schema, sattva and tamas are accounted for, so Ahamkara must be the rajasic form or evolute of Buddhi.

Similarly, the products of Ahamkara in which rajas predominates are the 10 indriyas, that is, the five senses and the five organs of action. The five Tan-Matras, from which the gross elements are said to be derived, are predominantly tamas. The sattvic eleventh is manas or mind, having characteristics of both cognition and action.

Bear with me. I will make my point in my next post.

In the Samkhya literature, we find a sort of pseudo-scientific description of the action of rajas. It is responsible for all of our cognition and action. Seeing, hearing, touching, tasting, walking, talking, all this is the action of rajas. Ahamkara is the seat of desire and will. It is the agent or doer. Nothing we do in life is possible without it. But if you look at chapter fourteen of the Bhagavad Gita, you will find a different description of rajas.

“It is the three gunas born of prakriti - sattva, rajas, and tamas - that bind the immortal self to the body…Rajas is passion, arising from selfish desire and attachment. These bind the self with compulsive action…When rajas predominates, a person runs about pursuing selfish and greedy ends, driven by restlessness and desire…from sattva comes understanding, from rajas, greed.”

In the Bhagavad Gita, rajas is always bad. In my view, Samkhya describes ego, the Bhagavad Gita describes egotism.