driftingraven122 said:To me, "ego" is basically anything I can—and do—identify with. Everything from trivial stuff like my name to thoughts or even "consciousness." Maybe we should just agree on an exact definition for ego first, so we actually start using the same language—otherwise, we're just talking past each other.
I'm curious—what's the actual basis for that line of reasoning? If Buddha or some other mystic claimed there is something that can be symbolically called "awakening," and suggested it's a smart move to "wake up" and eventually help others do the same—then why would wanting to verify that claim be considered an "utter" ego trip?
Why do you think that's a valid analogy? Personally, I don't see any connection whatsoever between "spiritual practice" (at least the ones I'm aware of) and "touching the tip of your finger with its tip."
How am I supposed to define something that doesn't even exist? I’m talking about something I can't physically feel, something that gives me zero indicators, and absolutely no way to measure or point to it using any kind of data or sensory input. It's like trying to describe a color that hasn't been invented yet—how do you even begin to put words to a complete void?
Responding to someone using their full legal name feels like such a strange social convention to me—it’s basically just a tool we use to make sure we're actually talking to the right person, keeps things organized, and makes life easier for whoever is crunching the numbers for various statistics. But honestly? I don't feel like my name is some core part of my identity. It’s more like a handshake or a basic social contract that I follow just to keep things running smoothly in public.
To be honest, my thoughts aren't even really mine... I used to think I was the one in control of them, but once you start looking closely at how things actually work, you realize that thought is the primary driver—experience is just secondary. Thought is absolute, whereas experience is always relative. And the same logic applies to the "person" having those experiences; the "I" only exists in a relative sense. I didn't just pop into existence out of thin air. Whatever it is that I actually originated from—whatever that source might be—that thing is absolute. It’s the primary reality. You could call it the Mother of all Mothers, the Absolute, the Void, or whatever terminology fits your perspective, but that's where the truth lies.
To be honest, before I really sat with this, I used to walk around thinking that "I" was the one doing all the thinking—you know, that little voice in my head driving the bus. But lately, I’ve come to realize that whole idea is just a total illusion. It’s like looking at a reflection in a moving stream and thinking you can grab it; you just can't identify the thought process with the "self"... or maybe, if we're being precise, it works the other way around. But here's the kicker: if you actually manage to identify that "I" with the Absolute, the entire mechanism of identification just... stops. It’s done. Think of it like a metamorphosis—this process where the subject (the "me" I thought I knew) transforms into a transcendental object (the Absolute). Once you truly see that you *are* the Absolute, the need to identify disappears because there's no longer a separate identity left to cling to. Everything else just falls away, leaving nothing behind but a pure point of awareness.
Awareness itself isn't really some kind of "output" from my hard work—it’s not something I manufacture. Think about it this way: if someone walks into a room carrying an umbrella, provided you actually see the person and the umbrella, can you really *not* be aware of that umbrella entering the space? Of course you can't. So, being aware of my surroundings isn't some product of intense mental effort or focused labor; it’s just a spontaneous interpretation of the shifts happening around me. In a sense, I’m more like a mirror—just a surface reflecting all the changes occurring in my environment. Now, the way we interpret those changes can be totally arbitrary, but it’s also unavoidable. It becomes arbitrary because we tend to mess it up through various levels of denial or by projecting our own stuff onto what we see. But if we could reach that ideal state—where we aren't denying what's right in front of us and aren't projecting our subconscious onto reality—then awareness of the environment is simply a consequence of change itself. And that’s something I can't even claim as "me."
Self-awareness—or what people usually call "self-awareness"—is really just a matter of resonance. Think of consciousness like a mirror; the second that consciousness catches its own reflection, you get self-awareness. It’s not some achievement you can grind for or a product of sheer willpower, either. It's more like pure interference between your consciousness and your perception—kind of like two waves overlapping to create a new pattern. And even then, once you peel back the layers, there isn't really anything left for me to actually latch onto or identify with.
After doing a little bit of "internal inspection," I’ve come to a pretty significant conclusion—consciousness isn't some sort of phenomenon that just pops up "inside" me. Instead, it feels more like the very foundation that I was built upon; it's likely the underlying substrate for my entire existence. Think of it this way: the different segments of our existence basically vary based on how much mobility they have and their general capacity to interact with everything around them. That capacity for interaction includes the ability to make choices when multiple options are on the table—which is exactly what we call free will. In my view, the choices and decisions I make are really the only things I can truly claim as "mine," and because of that, I take full responsibility for them. So, if I’m digging deep to explore the concept of "self," those specific choices are really the only candidates qualified to hold the title of the "ego." But hey, I’m not just floating in a vacuum here... there's a whole world surrounding me, too... and we definitely need to keep that in the equation, right?
So, if consciousness is really the "foundation" of everything, then I’m sharing that same "foundation" with the entirety of existence. Let’s try a metaphor—think of a massive Oak tree, and let's say my "self" is just a single leaf on that tree. Every individual leaf has its own "sense" of being itself and the ability to make decisions on a "local" level. A leaf can turn toward the sunlight, and if enough other leaves decide to turn toward the light, the whole branch will eventually pivot toward the sun. As a leaf, I might think I’m "individual" (in *individuum*—meaning divided) and experience myself as a persona (from *personae*—a voice through a mask, a dramatic mask), making choices that might actually end up hurting the tree as a whole. But since I share this "foundation" with every other leaf, every branch, the bark, the trunk, and the roots... well, that would be pretty foolish. When I make a decision, I have to account for all the other segments of my immediate surroundings that I share a foundation with. This means the "entity" I’m actually deciding in whose interest is much, much larger than this little "leaf" I physically feel like—my very survival is tied directly to the rest of the tree. In other words, I am just one of many "conscious points" on the same tree. If an "I" exists, that "I" IS the entire tree.
Just like my liver doesn't perceive my eyeball, even though they both belong to one single human organism—similarly, I am just one conscious part of the absolute consciousness that serves as the "foundation" of its own existence.
There we go... instead of giving you a dry definition of the ego, I’ve laid out a full analogy to explain why I hold the views I mentioned earlier. If you spot any flaws in that logic, I’d honestly love to sit down and hash it out with you. But as you can see, my perspective doesn't allow me to define what you call the "ego" or claim to possess it—because when I look at "myself," I simply don't find it there.
driftingraven122 said:To me, "ego" is basically anything I can—and do—identify with. Everything from trivial stuff like my name to thoughts or even "consciousness." Maybe we should just agree on an exact definition for ego first, so we actually start using the same language—otherwise, we're just talking past each other.
I'm curious—what's the actual basis for that line of reasoning? If Buddha or some other mystic claimed there is something that can be symbolically called "awakening," and suggested it's a smart move to "wake up" and eventually help others do the same—then why would wanting to verify that claim be considered an "utter" ego trip?
Why do you think that's a valid analogy? Personally, I don't see any connection whatsoever between "spiritual practice" (at least the ones I'm aware of) and "touching the tip of your finger with its tip."
1) The concept of verifying a claim is fundamentally different from the concept of "becoming" something other than what you already are. I said that the idea of "becoming" something is an ego trip. Verifying someone else's claim (no matter what that claim is) is something else entirely. "Becoming" something and "discovering" what you truly are aren't even similar, let alone comparable concepts.
2) What kind of technique can you use to gradually wake up? How long does it take you to wake up after sleeping? One moment you're asleep, and the next you're awake... probably still groggy, sure, but awake nonetheless. There are no techniques for waking up. You just have to want to wake up RIGHT NOW. No preparation, no specific methods, and no waiting around for a period of change. Transformation is instantaneous; it doesn't require time.
