Unity - Equilibrium of the Ego and Self

Posted on April 20, 2005
Filed Under Journal, Society, Spirituality, Consciousness |

Traditional eastern spiritual teachings focus on the “I” or ego as the source of all duality. These teachings present the aim of expunging the ego in order for man to bring “self” into harmony with the universe.

The underlying belief behind this method of spirituality recognises the following as what it terms a simple truth: The world around us is created through mans own ego - or “I”. We create a vision of the world based upon principalities and ideologies created within our own mind. Further; based upon this form of knowledge we cannot know the true world, as our own distinctions instantly transform the real world into an illusion; the result of which is our perception.

Zen teachings for example show that this illusion can be broken when Man gives up his “I”, and ceases to see himself as separate from the universe. In doing this, man comes into oneness with all existence. To such a mind, distinctions between self and other are no longer relevant; one perceives the universe as would an inert object. Content to simple “be”.

What appears to be a paradoxical statement is then relevant. Without a sense of “I” there can be no universe, because “other” can only exist if “I” exists.

There are further concepts which show the illusory nature of the universe, but those will be left for other articles, thus allowing us to concentrate on the above teachings.

*Spirituality*

Although these spiritual teachings contain pertinent information; which in turn convey a perspective that is very relevant - it is the conclusion which has been arrived at by these teachings which must be focused upon, for the adoption of such a stance is flawed.

The concept behind these eastern spiritual teachings is now much the same as modern western philosophical thought. Although western thought for many centuries caught itself in externalising its perspective - essentially stating the source of all knowledge is found outside of the mind - from Descartes onwards western thought arrived in the position of showing that the mind is the source of its own perspectives.

The human ego creates its own rules for the world, based upon its own observations. A person may say “Gravity obeys Newton’s Law” - this is a faux pas, and serves to show how mans ego forms the centre of his world perspective. The truth in this case would be; “Newton’s Law can be applied to describe the effects of gravity.”

The former sentence implies nature following laws pre-described by man. The latter sentence indicates man applying labels and systems to pre-existing and self-evident occurrences of nature.

It is in this manner of creating facts and applying nature into them that man projects his “I” externally. To such a perspective, the observations of the universe - through a process of logic - give birth to the idea of “Cause and Effect”. Here the mind observes an effect, and then the “I” places its own labels and systems upon this effect. The minds reliance upon logic combined with the minds linear nature then seek a “cause”. This cause is observed by the mind and again the “I” places labels and systems upon it.

Thus the intellect observes (and in many cases creates) the connection between the cause and effect.

Philosophical thought and spiritual teachings show that without the “I” there cannot be “other”. That is to say, that duality can only exist in the presence of an “I” - or an independent observer. In the event the “I” is removed, duality ceases to exist; one thing can no longer be separate from another. The universe itself becomes a oneness - which these lines of thought state are its _natural_ state. Within such a oneness linear events cannot exist, thus one thing cannot precede another. Therefore in the absence of “I”, cause and effect cease to be possible.

With eastern thought arriving at such a conclusion, it shows it believes that only with the expungence of “I” can the universe be reduced to a level that can be “known”. Further…that once man has given up his “ego”, the desire to know becomes irrelevant. Without “I” there is no “known” or “unknown”.

It can now be shown, that this conclusion - whilst claiming to be egoless, is still as much of a trap as being entirely ego-centric.

In order to understand this, firstly the source of the “I” must be sought. This is a task to which Greek thought lent itself for a very long time, continuously seeking outer sources. Religions label God as the source of the “I”. Even modern science seeks this truth; with some sciences claiming the “I” to be a result of complex chemical reactions.

However in each of the above cases - as well as many others - the one continuous present action is the “I” creating systems in order to discover its own source. These systems are then projected from inside the “I” onto the external world. The “I” then seeks to find its creator externally within those projections.

Using this method the source of “I” cannot be found. The source of “I” cannot be found externally, purely because it has been created _internally_. The “I” is its own source. This is what Descartes meant by “I think therefore I am.” To say this another way: I exist because via my methods of thought, I have given creation to my ego or *I*.

But man has trouble accepting he is the source of himself; thus he seeks to displace it elsewhere. The eastern teachings shown above go a step further, not only do they seek to lay the source of the ego elsewhere. It is perceived that they seek to _remove_ it or transcend it.

It is at this point that the distinction between “self” and the “I” becomes eminantly clear. The “self” is the pure consciousness that we possess, unaffected by the “I”. The “I” in this case is the “ego”; the ego being the false sense of self created from the false ideals the ego itself creates.

The egoless sense of self is the state that eastern teachings seek to attain; that only through the removal of the ego can enlightenment appear. This allows one to move into a state whereby they are free of duality. But how far can such a perspective go toward the evolution of mankind, or the individual? Within such a frame of reference, the concept of future evolution becomes a non-existent concern. Instead one concentrates only on the present, for in the absence of “I” it is the only thing that exists.

The egoless mind is rooted perpetually within the present, and can perceive only a constant stream of the here and now. It percieves itself as in harmony with the external world - a oneness. Without the ego, the mind possesses none of its drive for external development, evolution and progress for the simple reason that it understands that percieved outter change is a result of the ego.

This is in stark contrast to the mind that is trapped by the ego - such a mind as this is rooted within the either the future or the past. It becomes unaware of the present, aside from in a purely _reactionary_ uncontemplated manner. However it seeks to imprint itself constantly upon the external world.

We are therefore presented with two aspects of our being; the ego and the self.

The hidden nature of pure self, which is buried by the ego - is an aspect of ourselves that many fail to see. Pure self enables us to think and act in a natural manner. That is to say, the ego which is a conditioned sense of self, created by various external factors – adversely effects our world perspective. The perspective of the ego-centric mind becomes trapped within rules and systems, but these factors are all results of the projection of the ego. As the above teachings show we can break away from the conditioned sense of ego to become one with our pure self.

However, this brings us to a very important factor. Due to the nature of the ego - which creates duality - we are given the ability to perceive our own consciousness. The ego enables us to separate ourselves from the external; this occurs in order for us to perceive that we are indeed a separate entity from others. That we possess individuality.

As already shown the concept behind these eastern thoughts (and modern western thought) shows us that without the ego, “I” and “other” does not exist. It therefore follows, that without the ego, man would not be aware of his _self_, as he would have no experience of other. Experience of true pure self can only occur with prior possession of an ego. If one were to live from birth without an ego - or sense of “I”, they would possess no individuality, therefore the point must be stated; without a reference of “I” how could “pure-self” be perceived?

It can only follow that if mans true nature is that of pure self, then it must also be of mans true nature to possess an ego.

The ego has been shown here, and by many others to be a false sense of self, an indoctrinated identity which has been created due to external factors. Further, that these external factors can only indoctrinate when the ego projects itself upon the external world. (Ideas are assimilated into the mind, the mind then projects these ideas upon the world in order to define that world).

So whilst eastern thought shows that true self can only be experienced in the absence of ego, it does not follow that man should dismiss, transcend or remove his ego. To do so would be akin to stating that man can remove his eyes if he only lives in dark caves. Or he has no need of a voice if there is no one to talk to.

We are again presented with a case where man takes his beliefs to extremes, and to the exclusion of all else.

*Absolutism*

As shown in my articles elsewhere; western man adopts an extreme belief in the physical world to the exclusion of the spiritual. The spiritual perspective presented in this article then, could be perceived to be in direct opposition to the physical perspective. However that would not be a correct assumption. The two perspectives, although on opposite polar ends, are of the exact same nature. This nature is in the temptation to follow one path to the exclusion of all else, thus leading one to a flawed perspective of life.

This flawed perspective has taken two aspects of reality - both very different - and applied to them the same extremist belief. Thus when considered from the view of future human evolution and development; the extremist adoption of both aspects as presented here, renders both aspects useless *when viewed as singular beliefs*.

When Indian Buddhism met Chinese thought, it became obsessed with the nature of the Tao. The symbol of the yin/yang represents the principles I present here very well. In Zen, eastern thought rooted itself deeply and exclusively within only one side of the symbol. In western thought - whose worldview is purely physical - rooted itself exclusively within the other aspect of the symbol. There are those who have noticed this, and many who have commented upon this truth. Most of these people have adopted the belief that one must “walk the path between the two opposite poles”. But this yet again misses the essential point. Walking between each of the aspects affords one little more than he would have if he planted his stance precisely and exclusively within one camp only.

After perceiving the nature of these two areas of thought, one must embrace *both* areas entirely! We must encapsulate them both within our lives and within our world views. Only by doing this can we possess perspective enough to bring both aspects into equal balance with each other.

The concepts of the west and the east show us one thing eminently clearly; as we partake of this life, it is not a case of “either / or”. It is not a case of “Is life physical or is it non-physical”? Neither is it a case of “Is it a dream or is it real”. Neither can it be a case of walking between the two.

A fundamental part of our reasoning compels us to always choose “one or the other” in any given situation. Our minds seem to reflex away from accepting multiple paths, as we fear them to be contradictory. Our ego being linear tells us that paradox cannot exist. However the pure self shows us that “contradiction” is merely a result of the ego. That it is only the ego that places constraints upon such a situation; the ego alone that refuses to accept paradox.

Contemporary physical science would perhaps argue against this case; however the mind that adopts both the physical and spiritual can only see this truth as being self evident. That is to say, the mind can be at once aware of _both_ the physical and the non-physical. Thus in itself, the ego could perceive the mind as paradoxical…comprising of two aspects which are in opposition to each other. The truth then, is that these aspects - though on opposite ends - comprise a _unity_. To elaborate, this means the co-existance of direct condradictory opposites, both of which exist in an equal manner. Although unnecessary for this article, this observation of the nature of reality has also been accepted by quantum physics; a melding together of the physical and non-physical.

To the mind that perceives the world via only one of these aspects, it perceives a world that is illusory. But to the mind that views the world from _both_ aspects it understands that the world is both illusory and non-illusory. That some aspects we cannot detect with our physical senses form a part of what is “reality”, whilst conversely some of that which our physical senses show us as real, are mere illusion.

To emphasis, there are no absolutes; that to say we “can know” or we “cannot know” is a falsest. Existence is not a case of “either / or”, rather existence is an acceptance of a unity; a whole.

At this point a new question arises. How do we apply this knowledge to our lives? If “relative” and “absolute” are merely concepts of the ego; then how do we lend our stance to comprehending ourselves and the universe?

*Physicality*

In order to consider this, we must look at what we currently believe “comprehension” to be. In part, this issue is discussed in my articles “No Thoughts”:http://www.thethoughts.co.uk/thoughts/nothoughts.htm and “Mass Consciousness”:http://www.thethoughts.co.uk/thoughts/massconsciousness.htm. The following can be considered a brief overview of those thoughts.

As shown in the previously mentioned articles, much of humanity spend our waking hours in a state of “slumber”, where our minds are in a semi-unconscious state. Thus we partake of our life experiences in a mechanical manner, generally _re_ acting to external stimuli without true self consideration, rather than _acting_ based upon conscious and original self thought.

Further analysis of this situation shows how we perceive the world and events around us. Earlier in this article, it is displayed how the semi-conscious mind (or ego-centric mind) has difficulty in understanding and accepting all issues that appear to be: contradiction, paradoxical or relative. The semi-conscious mind automatically reflexes away from the aforementioned concepts, preferring to latch on to what it perceives as comforting absolutes. Simply put it is a condition of viewing the world in states of black and white.

The semi-conscious mind then can thus be considered allegorical with a computer. A computer understands only two instructions; “on” and “off”. This is called binary and is represented to the computer in numerical digits; 1 and 0.

Whilst it is true to say that a computer can build complex patterns, programs and control methods from long strings of 1’s and 0’s – the essential truth still remains that no matter how complex the subject that is submitted into a computer, the computer can only understand the subject once it has been reduced to a set of absolutes.

The unawake and ego-centric mind functions in a like manner.

For example, a soldier refuses to obey orders. In order for an observer to comprehend this issue – background information is required. In this example the solider refused his orders, because he felt them to be illegal orders, requiring him to open fire upon a fellow citizen for undue reason.

The issue is then reduced to “He _should_ have obeyed orders, because that his is mandate.” Or “He should not have obeyed orders, because he has an obligation to protect.”

Thus the issue is reduced to base components of absolutes, either “1” or “0”.

A further example: A new law is introduced by a country’s government requiring that all citizens submit to an identity check in order to carry out an everyday activity – in this example, to move from state to state (or county to county).

The base absolutes surrounding this – which an individual requires in order to relate to this issue are thus: “People have a right to move freely without checks!” and “It is required to produce a safe society!”

Other examples of lifestyle, consumerism, personal choice etc. could be pursued; however this issue has been covered within the aforementioned articles.

In each of the above cases the issue is clearly reduced to base absolutes; black and white, “either / or”, a 1 or a 0.

This in our present age is what passes for “comprehension”; an understanding of the base absolutes that construct any giving issue or situation. However, such a perspective does little to resolve the issue, which no matter the “side” of the argument chosen, will occur again and again in different permutations.

A mind that can only perceive absolutes cannot see the true nature of reality. A mind centred on absolutes will not see the soldier’s actions descending from a multitude of surrounding and preceding issues. A “1” or a “0” will not reflect the whole nature of a society and cultural (global) consciousness which led to increasingly tighter and tighter forms of control. Further a semi-conscious mind will see no need to take anything further into account than the presented base absolutes.

Traditional comprehension then, is based only on the single aspect of reality that concentrates upon absolutes.

By using a method such as this, a person will displace themselves…as the natural state of the mind is not one of absolutes. In order to begin understanding the full nature of reality we must open our being to its higher aspects.

*Unity*

Comprehension as shown above can be placed firmly within one aspect of reality; it is a product of physicality – its structure being comprised of purely physical logical observations. When comprehension in this form stands as the single aspect of how an individual perceives the world and themselves, then indeed their scope of perception will be limited; just as the mind that confines itself to any single aspect of reality will trap itself within the same confines.

However, when our beings are open to the additional aspects of reality we begin to perceive the borders and limits of a singular perception.

When we give true thought into the nature of physicality we begin to see how we condition that perspective ourselves, and further we find that this physicality conditions us. Physicality erects walls within the mind, forcing us to comply with the rules as defined by physicality itself - rules which we adopt as our own beliefs.

When we perceive this fact; rather than battering upon these walls, or receding back within their confines one can instead step _beyond_ the confines of such a single aspected reality.

This in essence means that we find the ability to step beyond our self-created rules.

A true understanding of the nature of physicality, when brought into conjunction with a true understanding of pure-self (spirituality)…renders us with the ability for a free flowing and dynamic perception of our existence. Enabling us a perspective which is not impeded by contradiction, paradox or ambiguity, but rather accepts these aspects as a part of our reality. Such a mind thus finds the freedom to learn how to make its own free choices.

With such unity the mind can truly see the nature of the temptation to forsake one belief system and adopt another, and thus is possessed of the ability to side-step this trap.

If we take it upon ourselves to awaken our minds to a multi-faceted reality – with which we can gain knowledge to create our own free choices, we can evolve beyond the concepts imposed upon us by ego created absolutism. We can thus learn to live without being confined to self created systems and rules.

Marcus - 2005