Ego

[Bruce Michael]

Hi All
What do we mean by "Ego"- that sense of self? The occultist describes the seat of the ego at the root of the nose as a blue egg. And that is where we feel our sense of "I" resides. It is blue, just the way a gas flame is blue, because it is empty.

Our sense of individuality is called the Id- Greek "ideos"- which is also the root of the word "idiot". It's funny how words change in meaning. "Idiot" once meant a "private person" according to my dictionary.

"And it is to the ego that we attribute experience and also that which follows experience - and it is the egg-shaped ego which encloses the soul, with essences of: fiery activity (cognition), fiery ethers (form and the plans thereof), divine impulses (characterising streams of being, planetary rays etc.), vitality fluids (of which there are many), memory (akashic recall), sympathy ('bonded to' influences, signature keys etc.), substance (particles of quality, that which is of elements known or to be known - e.g. copper and its corresponding planet etc.), metabolism (related to sympathy, access to Pneu of Man at present), Desire (subtle body which makes sense of sense, sensitive to fiery activity also), Greater Desire (sensitive to the impulse of greater cognition, motivation, and exclamation) and, last but not least, Joy, Love, Laughter, Compassion, and Happiness: which are natural to the soul and the ego, and characteristic to the expression of being, as being."

-the Brothers

-Br.Bruce

[Eclectic Mystic]

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

Our sense of individuality is called the Id- Greek "ideos"- which is also the root of the word "idiot". It's funny how words change in meaning. "Idiot" once meant a "private person" according to my dictionary.

A person "living in their own world," perhaps?

[Muslimwoman]

I tend to think of my ego as my arrogance, that side of me that believes I am right or my opinion is valid and should be seen as so by others.

It is also my vanity. When sometimes the idea that the outer shell is in any way important or makes me who I am.

Sometimes I need to lock my ego in a box, or it gets me into all sorts of trouble.

[Bruce Michael]

Originally Posted by Eclectic Mystic

A person "living in their own world," perhaps?

I have seen various definitions for the word. Perhaps it means one who is "private" cut off from the spiritual world.

The Apostle Paul calls himself an idiotes.

Those whose hearts are being "purified" are called "private individuals (idiotes) [ 5 ]" because they are being prepared to become members of the society of "illumined" and "glorified" who since Pentecost are becoming members of the Body of Christ.

THE CHURCH OF PRE-INCARNATE AND INCARNATE YAHWEH

Interpretation Of Tongues

But an outsider or uninformed person [Greek: idiotes] might not understand (16)

This is a theosophical definition of the word as used by Paul:

Peter and Paul

He (Paul) designates himself an idiotes -- a person unskilful in the Word, but not in the gnosis or philosophical learning. 'We speak wisdom among the perfect or initiated,' he writes; 'not the wisdom of this world, nor of the archons of this world, but divine wisdom in a mystery, secret -- which none of the Archons of this world knew.'"

-Br.Bruce

[Bruce Michael]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

I tend to think of my ego as my arrogance, that side of me that believes I am right or my opinion is valid and should be seen as so by others.

It is also my vanity. When sometimes the idea that the outer shell is in any way important or makes me who I am.

Sometimes I need to lock my ego in a box, or it gets me into all sorts of trouble.

Hi Sally,
Who is the "I" that locks your ego in the box?

Actually egotism is a result of a weak ego. A person with a strong sense of self doesn't need artificial means to prop himself up.

We can be humble and also have a strong sense of self.

Warm Regards,
B.Bruce

[Eclectic Mystic]

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

Actually egotism is a result of a weak ego. A person with a strong sense of self doesn't need artificial means to prop himself up.

We can be humble and also have a strong sense of self.

I've always agreed with this. Strong and gentle ego=good. Strong and clumby ego=bad. Weak and clumbsy ego=worse.

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

Who is the "I" that locks your ego in the box?

as salaam aleykum Br. Bruce

What a very good question. The better self? Not sure what I mean by that but it was the first thing that came to mind. I am thinking the good self, the one that doesn't give in to worldly desires.

The bad self desires acceptance by others, admiration and validation.

But I would call the bad self my ego. Next I think you will ask what I would call the good self and I have absolutely no idea.

Salaam
Sally

[Bruce Michael]

Peace Sally,

>The bad self desires acceptance by others, admiration and validation.

That is low self esteem which is really a case of a weakened ego. You might not be used to the way I'm using the term.

In reality we are pure beings- with attachments.
We have our Doppelgänger which houses a myriad of elemental beings that seek our attention.
That is the source of the Jekyll and Hyde story.

>Next I think you will ask what I would call the good self and I have >absolutely no idea.

That is YOU.
Mystics do confront themselves with the question "Who am I?"


Best Wishes,
Br.Bruce

[JosephM]

It seems to me that ego is who we think we are and is provided us by conditioning from society and others. It is basically a reflected awareness that is false.

JM

[AndrewX]

I want to point out something about the word `ego.' This word is from the Latin (I'm sure we all know that), meaning simply `I,' or `I myself.' And the pronoun `I,' like the word ego, brings several things to mind for all of us.

Among these, we should not forget the Biblical account of God's answer to Moses, when the latter inquires about God's Identity. God simply replies, "Tell them I AM sent you."

Sometimes we also see God's response translated as `I am THAT I am,' and in the East, sages would once ask their disciples, "Kas twam asi?" (Who are you?), to which the reply was, "Tat tvam asi" (Thou art THAT).

I also wanted to mention that modern psychology did not originate the term `ego,' but only popularized its usage ... as part of Freud's breakdown of the psyche, connotating roughly the conscious mind.

Buddhism, too, has contributed to our understanding of the ego, in pointing out that like all else, the mortal, individual self is transitory. Our ego, in other words, is certainly NOT our Real Self, if indeed there is one.

In the teachings of Occultism, more specifically 19th Century Theosophical teachings (The Voice of the Silence, presented by H.P. Blavatsky), we come across the statement, "The mind is the great slayer of the Real. Let the disciple slay the slayer." The word `mind' here equates with the misleading power of ego of Buddhist or Hindu teachings ... the false self, which tries to pass itself off as our true nature. Thus, a modern rewrite of HPB's Voice of the Silence might well read: "The EGO is the great slayer of the Real."

But the term ego was around long before it was borrowed by Freud and his peers, and used to designate our conscious, LOWER mind (or lesser self, in one of its three aspects). Theosophists used this word in a more neutral sense, but also tended to equate it with our SOUL, the Immortal, Spiritual aspect of our nature (though technically the middle principles, and not the Highest).

In H.P. Blavatsky's The Secret Doctrine, published 1888, we find the following commentary on the nature of the Spiritual Ego (or `Higher Self,' as it was called a full Century before the `New Age' spiritualities of today) ... under a section on the `Creation of the First Races' of Humanity.

The Sanskrit terminology may be unfamiliar to some readers, but the key point that Ego has to do with MIND (or Intellect) can nevertheless be intuitively understood by everyone.

ON THE IDENTITY AND DIFFERENCES OF THE INCARNATING POWERS.

THE Progenitors of Man, called in India "Fathers," Pitara or Pitris, are the creators of our bodies and lower principles. They are ourselves, as the first personalities, and we are they. Primeval man would be "the bone of their bone and the flesh of their flesh," if they had body and flesh. As stated, they were "lunar Beings."

The Endowers of man with his conscious, immortal EGO, are the "Solar Angels" -- whether so regarded metaphorically or literally. The mysteries of the Conscious EGO or human Soul are great. The esoteric name of these "Solar Angels" is, literally, the "Lords" (Nath) of "persevering ceaseless devotion" (pranidhana). Therefore they of the fifth principle (Manas) seem to be connected with, or to have originated the system of the Yogis who make of pranidhana their fifth observance (see Yoga Shastra, II., 32.) It has already been explained why the trans-Himalayan Occultists regard them as evidently identical with those who in India are termed Kumaras, Agnishwattas, and the Barhishads.

How precise and true is Plato's expression, how profound and philosophical his remark on the (human) soul or EGO, when he defined it as "a compound of the same and the other." And yet how little this hint has been understood, since the world took it to mean that the soul was the breath of God, of Jehovah. It is "the same and the other," as the great Initiate-Philosopher said; for the EGO (the "Higher Self" when merged with and in the Divine Monad) is Man, and yet the same as the "OTHER," the Angel in him incarnated, as the same with the universal MAHAT. The great classics and philosophers felt this truth, when saying that "there must be something within us which produces our thoughts. Something very subtle; it is a breath; it is fire; it is ether; it is quintessence; it is a slender likeness; it is an intellection; it is a number; it is harmony. . . . . "(Voltaire).

All these are the Manasam and Rajasas: the Kumaras, Asuras, and other rulers and Pitris, who incarnated in the Third Race [Lemuria, 18 million years ago & hence], and in this and various other ways endowed mankind with Mind.

-- The Secret Doctrine, Vol. 2, Pages 88-89.

Another excerpt, from an Online Theosophical Glossary (Purucker's), may be even clearer in explaining for us something of the significance of ego, both as our Higher, or Intellectual/Spiritual Principle (which is Immortal in every case), as well as the lesser, mortal reflection ... the ego of modern psychology and Buddhist teachings.

Egoity I-am-I-ness, ahamkara; human egoity is dual, but egoity really should mean individuality, not personality. The characteristic or swabhava of individuality is egoity or the essential root of I-am-I-ness, while the characteristic or swabhava of the personality is egoism, the faint shadow of egoity drunken with the sense of its own exclusive importance in the world. Further, both egoity and egoism are sharply distinguished from essential selfhood; paradoxically, the stronger the idea of essential selfhood in the human being, the less is there of egoity, and the least there is of egoism, for even egoity is a reflection, albeit high, of spiritual selfhood, which recognizes its oneness with the All. Thus ego is defined as I-am-I, consciousness recognizing its own mayavi existence as a separate entity, hence often called reflected consciousness. Essential selfhood is the characteristic of atman in the human constitution; egoity arises in the conjunction of atma-buddhi with manas; whereas personality or egoism is the faint reflection of the latter working in and through the lower manas, kama, and prana.

And to show that the term `ego' was indeed around well before psychology seized ahold of it, here is the list of references from the Index of HPB's 1888 The Secret Doctrine:

Ego(s). See also Higher Self, Self, Spiritual Egos

aroma of all births clings to II 632n
cognizes itself II 241
creation of, by ideation I 329n
divine I 309, 445; II 548
divine reaches, thru buddhi I xix
early races had no II 183, 610
effort of, to be free of senses II 587
evolved fr spiritual beings I 282
first differentiated, archangels II 242
gods are conscious spiritual I 632
hierarchies of intelligent, nature of I 629
higher self the real I 445
human, is higher manas II 79
human, latent in sleep I 429
karmic, of Gnostics II 604-5
limitations of personal I 329-30
Logos & Adversary reflected in II 162
lower, has upper hand II 109-10
Manu the non-dying I 248
monad becomes personal I 245
must experience on all planes I 329-30
not separate fr universal ego I 130-1
Plato's definition of II 88
progresses thru effort I 17
progressive awakenings of I 40
real immortal II 241
reincarnating, & sterility II 780
self-conscious, organizing principle II 654
Self parent source of I 129
shape of vehicle in other rounds II 289n
strung like beads on sutratman II 79, 513
Subba Row on I 428

Egoism, Egoship, Egotism I 535

absorbed by buddhi I xix
ahamkara and/or I 197, 452; II 614
buddhi & I xix
I-am-ness or II 419-20
leads to error I 536n
Mahat & I 75; II 614
monads have no sense of I 275
mortal man moved by II 422
our globe in state of I 260
self-consciousness I 334, 335n

Clearly, the terms egoism, egotism and probably egotistical have been around for quite some time, yet it is worth pointing out that in the popular consciousness, a greater awareness of the Spiritual EGO as our `true self,' or Immortal SOUL ... still needs a little work.

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

That is YOU.

Salaam Br. Bruce

But it is the same ME, the bad and the good. One I admire and one I do not but both are me. It just depends which one I give in to on any given day (am I sounding a little schizophrenic here?)

Yes I can see that when I give in to the bad me it is through weakness, lack of desire to say no to myself. But to be truly humble surely you have to rid yourself of ego, the self that is weak?

alfa salaam
Sally

[Thomas]

Hi Andrew ...

Just wondering, does the id and superego have a place in your systems ... or is the Freudian make-up extraneous (as you point out, ego had a meaning long before Freud redefined it)?

Thomas

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Hi Andrew ...

Just wondering, does the id and superego have a place in your systems ... or is the Freudian make-up extraneous (as you point out, ego had a meaning long before Freud redefined it)?

Thomas

Thanks for the inquiry, Thomas ...

This is something I've pondered, and I've come to an understanding that works pretty well for me, with harmony between the systems of Freud, Jung, Theosophical & related esoteric thought, as well as the work of Italian psychiatrist Roberto Assagioli. In fact, the Psychosynthesis of the latter is precisely an effort (dating to 1910) to show the correlation between these various systems.

If you know the work of Freud somewhat (and I barely know it thus, at best), you may see what Assagioli is getting at, but only if you can appreciate a couple of other correlations. For instance, Carl Jung discusses a `Higher Self' in his psychological system, and when Alice Bailey speaks of the source of her dictations, a Tibetan Mahatma (Djwhal Khul) living in Tibet, Jung draws the conclusion that she is objectifying her own higher self. Alice found this amusing, since her Higher Self had apparently figured out a way to send her incense all the way from Tibet!

But getting back to the question, I would say that the id, ego and superego of Freud's system do not correlate precisely with Theosophical terminology, because there is some overlap. Generally speaking, however, the ego refers to the consciousness of lower mind and just those portions of our astral-emotional consicousness which we are most comfortable expressing during waking life. In some cases, where people have taken their own personal and spiritual development in hand, the `ego' consciousness can be extended so that it includes much of what would otherwise, and normally, be considered the unconscious ...

... but to be honest, I get a bit confused at this point, between Freud's and Jung's theories - their points of intersection and divergence. I do think that our id correlates largely with the elemental portion of our astral and etheric bodies. This is the blind urge aspect of our unconsciousness, something referred to Theosophically as the desire nature, even the kama-manas of some authors. Yet, there are also probably aspects of the ego which embrace kama-manas, as man, Theosophically, is a hybrid creature. We are Spirits, living in an animal form - and each has a life of its own!

The Super-Ego of Freud, not so unlike Carl Jung's Higher Self, definitely approximates the Theosophical SOUL, known by dozens of different terms, sometimes called the Solar Angel, and mentioned in many Theosophical writings as the Ego. I have usually heard this pronounced with a soft `e,' as in "Leggo my Eggo," from the waffles commercial ... i.e., with a British pronunciation.

Of course, Freud may have believed our super-ego to have been some kind of epiphenomenal development of our brain awareness, or perhaps an abstraction, but presumably he did not regard it metaphysically as the true ground of our Being, whence spring the periodical flowerings (annuals) into the worlds of form that we call `personality.' The tree grows upside down, does it not? The Fool of the Tarot also comes to mind ...

As I say, the most useful of all these tools for me, notwithstanding the Theosophical model (or more specifically the systems of Alice Bailey, which I consider seminal), is that of Roberto Assagioli. As the image is not copyrighted, I will copy it here from Wiki, and see if it invites discussion ...

The human psychological constitution according to Psychosynthesis

In essence, psychosynthesis can be best represented by an "egg diagram".

1. The Lower Unconscious
2. The Middle Unconscious
3. The Higher Unconscious
4. The Field of Consciousness
5. The Conscious Self or "I"
6. The Higher Self
7. The Collective Unconscious

If I am not mistaken, this brings together the several systems which were prevalent in Assagioli's day, as well as his own studies with Alice Bailey and the Tibetan Master in the early to mid 20th Century. Assagioli's system is still used today, and I would consider it one of the most advanced forms of Psychology on the planet (a true seed for a future Esoteric Psychology - incidentally, two of the books dictated to AAB are Esoteric Psychology, Vols. I & II).

Also, I find it significant that in Assagioli's model, the `I' or conscious `ego' occupies the space of only a small dot, almost like the tiny figure in Taoist art ... for which one must search, sometimes, in order to better appreciate our true role in the greater scheme of things.

Namaskar,

~Andrew

[Bruce Michael]

Hello Andrew,

>The Endowers of man with his conscious, immortal EGO, are >the> "Solar Angels" -- whether so regarded metaphorically or >literally.

That is my understanding. "Where there is a self, there are two selves" as the Rosicrucian wisdom states, is an expression of this fact. The angels were the awakeners of the nascent humanity in the condition of Earth-Moon. Though the actual substance of the Ego comes from a higher source.

Warm Regards,
Br.Bruce

[Bruce Michael]

Salaam Sally,
>But to be truly humble surely you have to rid yourself of ego, the self that is >weak?

Not in the way I am using the term. You say "rid your self"- that is the self that I am referring too.

Humility is something you have to work at on a moment to moment basis, and it takes a strong sense of self to be able to do it well.

I am talking about a strong sense of understanding who you are in the world. Not to be pushed this way and that by forces which would want you to follow their will- these might be other human beings or spiritual beings.

-Br.Bruce