The Ego and "Seeing Things as they are"

[Eclectic Mystic]

It is often said that through dissolution of the ego, one can see beyond its limited misconceptions and "see things as they are." But does this necessarily mean that there is never congrance?



(Link): http://assets.devx.com/articlefigs/6887.gif

To illustrate my question another way, if one circle represents the viewpoint of the ego and the other represents "reality as it is" (unadulterated by conceptions/misconceptions), then can there still be a red area where the two itersect?

[Bruce Michael]

Originally Posted by Eclectic Mystic

It is often said that through dissolution of the ego, one can see beyond its limited misconceptions and "see things as they are." But does this necessarily mean that there is never congrance?



(Link): http://assets.devx.com/articlefigs/6887.gif

To illustrate my question another way, if one circle represents the viewpoint of the ego and the other represents "reality as it is" (unadulterated by conceptions/misconceptions), then can there still be a red area where the two itersect?

Hello,
Yes one can be at-one with the object. There has always been philosophical debate as to whether we can know anything at all. Ultimately though, the process is one of clairvoyance not philosophy.

Normally "ego disolution" leads to unconsciousness- so there wouldn't be any seeing going on anyway.

Warm Regards,
Br.Bruce

[Eclectic Mystic]

Oh, I see how it is. None of you are going to address my thread about the supposed incompatabilty between the ego and "Seeing things as they are" directly when this is a fundamental theme and repeatedly the subject of many subliminal assertions. Fine.

[Francis king]

lol... it hasn't worked for u then, eclectic..?

but, to try and answer your q...

Personally, I think it's a myth that our ego, or definition of self is something to be rid of- what are we, if we are not us? A buddha, one who knows thinking, he must know he knows what he knows, and hopefully, by the same token, he must also be aware of what he doesn't know... that shouldn't mean that he should remove that which he knows, become a small wretched unprincipled idiot, surely? no, and so, the objective is for clear seeing, "samyak-drsti", perfect, or complete seeing... hence...

to see things as they are....

this in itself is easy: u open the eyes, have a look. Do some research. And then things become known. Perhaps this seeing things as they are is not some transcendental thing at all- maybe it's just a simple matter of being honest, realistic, and cultivating wisdom? Looking at issues and suchlike from both sides, understanding the potential repercussions of actions, understanding spin, and hype, and hearsay, etc, while at the same time understanding that you have come to the conclusions you have because of your education and experience of the world, while others might draw completely different conclusions...

without eyes, you cannot see. Without education, people remain stupid.

currently I am thinking that the term ego dissolution must in fact actually be a misnomer? As, for us to experience it there must be someone who watches, sees, feels, experiences... and so "I", "me", "us", "them", they haven't gone.. not entirely, surely?

The ego is much maligned in most religions; this willful backsliding sinful thing and yet- without ego, without a sense of self, without knowledge of what makes us tick, and an appreciation of who we are, which entails understanding where we've come from and understanding all the things we've seen and felt and heard and understanding how all these things makes us the person we are today, we are ignorant. Without a sense of self we become shameless, unprincipled...

in buddhism "mimamsa", or, "no shame" is considered a fetter, a bind, something which will hold you back, yet without an ego, there is no sense of right, and wrong, of what is acceptable and what is not, and so you might fall into the trap of no-shame- which binds you to suffering, in buddhist theory, at least...

the idea is, giving up that part of the ego which is fake, that part of the ego which says- hey, I'm better than you, I'm better than I am, I'm so clever and marvellous, I'm original, self propelling, self originating, such a great individual, when in truth, you are the same as the rest of us, with a mind full of other people's ideas and theories, with a mind full of illusions and fears which don't exist...

...for, it's that false ego which gets us into trouble, blinds us to our own faults and issues, makes us greedy, dishonest, spiteful, and to rid ourselves of these stains, these flaws, we have to understand why they have arisen, and so...

a good, honest appreciation of the self, a small but perfectly formed ego, is a good thing to have... a positive sense of self is something to cherish, not something to deride as inferior, or too human or worldly... stuff that...

if jesus, buddha, mohammed didn't have such well developed sense of themself, their opinions, their ideas, they wouldn't have been the men we think they are today, surely?

some people are seemingly born leaders, teachers, and guides... should we suggest that they do not bother, as their paths are considered too egocentric..? for if we do, there is no buddha, no jesus, no mohammed...

so yes, there can be a red area, where truth is truth, regardless of who you are and where you've come from, and that's the seeing things as they really are part...

lol... cheerio

[Eclectic Mystic]

Your name's Lowell? Well then Mr. Cheerio, thank you for taking my question seriously.

[jiii]

Well, my difficulty with the question is that this venn diagram you posted presumes that the 'ego', on one hand, and 'reality-as-it-is', on the other, are two polar entities which may or may not be mutually exclusive. Perhaps ego and reality-as-it-is are one and the same... in which case this venn diagram becomes a single, empty circle... much like the 8th painting in the Ten Stages of Ox-herding.

"At the eighth stage, 'person and ox both forgotten', we come to realize the fact that this 'I', which has been seeking, and the essential self, which has been the object of our search, did not exist at all."

If 'self', or 'ego', is an illusion, and 'reality-as-it-is' can only be conceived of with this illusory ego as it's thinker, then this entire venn diagram represents illusory entities which cannot actually be cleaved from one another. It would be as if I cut a snake in half to investigate whether or not his head and tail conjoin... quite a self-defeating experiment. To try to seperate 'ego' from 'reality-as-it-is' is like trying to halve a stream of water.

[Eclectic Mystic]

Two seperate circles would suck too.