Killing the Ego

[dwai]

* * * Killing the Ego * * *

 

Question : Papaji, a recurring difficulty for me is that my ego wants to be part of the process of becoming free.

My ego want to congratulate itself by saying

“Look at me. Look at what l am doing "

Part of me says, 'No, you are not coming here,

" but my ego, feeling like a little child, says,

“Me , too I am coming too ! So there isn't quite that letting go.

 

Sri Papaji : No need for letting go.

You should make use of this very sympathetic ego.

It is a nice ego, a good ego.

If the ego wants to be free, it is a good symptom.

First, the ego will start.

 

Usually, the ego doesn't want you to be free,

and will tend to take you toward the objects of the senses.

Mostly for enjoyment.

 

If the ego wants to be free, start with the ego itself.

First, I is an ego, isn't it?

 

Yes.

 

Through this ego you are working.

Everything is being worked by the ego itself in the world.

Now you have to make use of this ego.

Take this ego Selfward from where it arises.

If she wants to be free, take this ego toward freedom.

What is that?

Return to its source.

 

Ego is a thought, isn't it?

Ego is the first thought that rises in the morning.

" I am Fred" is Fred-thought.

So dive this ego-thought toward where it rises.

 

I has taken a role of ego itself.

I, the real I, has become I as an ego.

"I am doing this; I have done that; I want that; I don't want this; I know."

These thoughts rise as the ego.

 

Then, turn the ego back towards its source from where it rises.

"My ego wants to be free," you said.

So bring this ego back to its source.

Then this ego-I will introduce you to the real source, also an I.

When she returns to her source, this I will merge into the source.

That is why this thought is a very blessed thought.

 

"I want to be free" is still ego appearing.

So you must work on this ego-thought, this I-thought.

And return back to its source.

Then the ego will see her face; she will merge and ego will vanish.

What will be left is the source itself.

And this ego will not appear again.

It will be dissolved.., discharged into the ocean as a river discharges into the ocean

and becomes ocean and does not return.

 

From there, file functions will be from the source itself !

Not egoistic.

Spontaneous, without involvement in the thought process.

No thought process will be there--only direct sponta¬neous activity without thinking.

 

First I think and then I act.

This process will be gone and direct activity will be there according to circumstances.

In this process even the memory won't be there either.

You don't need memory.

Memory is ego itself.

 

All this will be finished.

Mind wiIl be no-mind.

Mind and ego, there is not much difference.

Neither the mind nor the ego exist.

In fact, they never existed !

 

These are just your own desires.

Desires for the enjoyment of the samsara.

Yet in reality, they don't exist.

You have never seen the face of your ego,

nor tile face of your mind.

It is like a ghost, so as a ghost we accept it.

This has been handed down from generation to generation.

In reality, the ego doesn't exist, the mind doesn't exist, and samsara doesn't exist.

 

Yet when the ego rises, samsara rises.

When the ego ceases, samsara ceases.

When samsara ceases, then you will recognize your nature.

You are not to earn it by any effort !

 

Even when you meditate

it is the suggestion through the ego itself that you meditate.

 

Q : The way you speak about it now,

it sounds like a very loving process.

Normal, I think of getting rid of the ego or killing the ego,

to let it go.

But now you are saying that

one should let the ego see its own true nature.

 

Sri Papaji : Yes,

 

Q : That seems like an incredibly loving thing to do for anything.

Because then it isn't killing but an enhancement.

Whatever sees its own true nature would be perfect.

 

Sri Papaji :

When you decide to kill ego, this is the ego itself.

How will you kill it?

Has anybody killed the ego?

What is the weapon needed to kill the ego?

First there must be something to be killed.

First you must see the thing that is to be killed.

Then, in the seeing, it is already killed.

This thought arises: "I want to kill the ego."

Trace this I itself.

When you say, "I want to kill the ego,"

return back to this l and see if there is any ego to be killed.

 

Q : You have often said the ego is like a wave arising in the ocean. It seems to me that the ocean and the ego are part of the same thing. Now l see I should really sink into my ego and from the place of the ego recognize that I am of the ocean itself

 

Sri Papaji : No, not that way.

When you say the wave belongs to the ocean,

who is saying the wave is different from the ocean?

 

Q : Ego.

 

Sri Papaji : Ego is the wave.

You are the source.

You are ocean,

yet you do not identify yourself with the ocean in that place.

When you are the ocean, how do you differ from the waves?

What conflict do you have with the waves?

 

Q: None. But my problem is to go from the ego to the source.

 

Sri Papaji : This source is ocean itself.

Ego plays on the surface of the ocean like a wave.

The trouble is that right now you are describing yourself as an onlooker of both ocean and wave,

standing somewhere on the beach.

You have to identify yourself and say, "I am the ocean."

 

Q : l see. I thought I was seeing myself as the wave.

But if I really saw myself as the wave then I wouldn’t be separate from the ocean.

So the wave can't see itself as separate from the ocean.

 

Sri Papaji : You have to be ocean itself.

You are the ocean.

When a wave arises, you be under the wave.

How is the wave different from the ocean itself ?

Name, shape, and movement.

All this is activity, but how is the ocean concerned with the wave's name, form, or movement ?

 

Waves rise and fall and move about, and how is this the ocean's concern?

You be the ocean first and then see.

Where is the wave?

Where is your ego?

 

These waves are only samsara rising from the ocean.

Under¬neath is nirvana.

Ocean is nirvana.

Emptiness.

In that emptiness waves arise.

And in emptiness if waves are moving,

how are they different from emptiness itself?

They are all empty !

 

So you have to return to the source, to emptiness, to the ocean,

and then see how you feel, how you are different in activities, movement, name, form.

 

Q: What is your response to someone who says,

"I have a family and children. I have too many commitments,

so what possibility is there for me to awaken?"

 

Sri Papaji : That person must wake up from the dream that he or she has a family.

One is always free and one is always alone.

The mind is only dreaming.

For example,

when I fall asleep I dream that I marry and have children.

In the dream I start to worry that I have no time for meditation or to go to the cave in the mountains.

All these things are uttered when a person is living in a dream.

It is better to wake that person up from the dream.

Nothing has ever touched this person;

he or she is always alone.

When you see any name or any form, it is only a dream.

 

Q : I read that the Maharshi said we should constantly abide in the Self

 

Sri Papaji : I would say instead, liberate the mind from any abiding.

 

Q: But the mind does not abide.

 

Sri Papaji : Who else but the mind abides?

 

Yes, but the mind finishes.

 

Sri Papaji : Yes, this is non-abidance.

If you abide somewhere, you have rejected someplace else to abide here.

If you abide here, the mind will jump to abide somewhere else as well.

Allow the mind to abide nowhere and what will be the result?

Mind has to abide on an object.

If the object is removed, the mind can¬not hang with an object.

Then there will be no-mind.

 

Q : Then the mind is its object.

 

Yes, same thing.

Any object is objectified mind.

And if you don't allow the mind to abide anywhere, there is no-mind.

No-mind is freedom.

When mind abides, samsara appears.

Samsara is a construction of the mind.

 

~ From WakeUp and Roar Satsang with H.W.L. Poonja Book

[3bob]

Are parts of this quote are straying from the Upanishads and or Sanatana Dharma? 

 

...for instance and a major example to be considered is from the Chandogya Upanishad which speaks of that which - "springs from the Self" -  and that which springs from the Self exists in certain ways since it is connected to the Self, granted such is not the transcendent Self but an emanation from same which can not denied imho..  I see no denial war by the Self of  that which springs from it!  In fact that springing forth is of Joy and of law, of the eternal law of Sanatana Dharma.

 

 

 

[Spotless]

I came to look at this post because the title was troublesome - and see that it was the subject of the post!

Very nice quote!

 

Many fine details touched upon in the fringes of the discussion.

[Jetsun]

Quite strange how the ego can be drawn to awakening even though it means it's dissolution, a bit like a moth to a flame, it just can't resist, or maybe there comes a point where the truth within is stronger than the ego which drives it to the flame, the ego just pretends it's still in charge.

 

One of my teachers read that book "Wake up and roar" by Papaji and immediately started having samadhi type experiences, to the point he went to India to speak to Papaji himself to ask about it, Papaji flat out said to him that those Samadhi experiences are not it, not awakening. And thank God he did otherwise he may have been stuck at that level of seductive bliss samadhi the rest of his life.

[Marblehead]

Yeah, it would be shameful to be happy for the rest of your life.

[dawei]

Quite strange how the ego can be drawn to awakening even though it means it's dissolution, a bit like a moth to a flame, it just can't resist, or maybe there comes a point where the truth within is stronger than the ego which drives it to the flame, the ego just pretends it's still in charge.

 

seems our minds give rises to language, concepts and words.... and then the idea of ego leads to the need to awakening ego...  

[3bob]

I'd say again, there is no denial war or divorce of Self regarding that which springs from it, regardless of high sounding quasi-mish-mash. 

 

No-thing does not negate mind per-se, it is just free from identification with being a thing or things and thus sees mind for what it is.  This idea is not unlike the fact that the Tao does not deny or destroy the Ten Thousand.

Edited February 3, 2017 by 3bob

[dwai]

I'd say again, there is no denial war or divorce of Self regarding that which springs from it, regardless of high sounding quasi-mish-mash.

 

No-thing does not negate mind per-se, it is just free from identification with being a thing or things and thus sees mind for what it is. This idea is not unlike the fact that the Tao does not deny or destroy the Ten Thousand.

That's exactly what Poonjaji is saying, as I understand what is quoted

[Bindi]

The body is insentient and cannot say ‘I’. The Self is pure consciousness and non-dual. It cannot say ‘I’. No one says ‘I’ in sleep. What is the ego then? It is something intermediate between the inert body and the Self. If sought for it vanishes like a ghost. You see, a man imagines that there is something by his side in darkness; it may be some dark object. If he looks closely the ghost is not to be seen, but some dark object which he could identify as a tree or a post, etc. If he does not look closely the ghost strikes terror in a person. All that is required is only to look closely and the ghost vanishes. The ghost was never there. So also with ego. It is an intangible link between the body and Pure Consciousness. It is not real. So long as one does not look closely it continues to give trouble. But when one looks for it, it is found to not exist. 

Ramana Maharshi

[Pilgrim]

The body is insentient and cannot say ‘I’. The Self is pure consciousness and non-dual. It cannot say ‘I’. No one says ‘I’ in sleep. What is the ego then? It is something intermediate between the inert body and the Self. If sought for it vanishes like a ghost. You see, a man imagines that there is something by his side in darkness; it may be some dark object. If he looks closely the ghost is not to be seen, but some dark object which he could identify as a tree or a post, etc. If he does not look closely the ghost strikes terror in a person. All that is required is only to look closely and the ghost vanishes. The ghost was never there. So also with ego. It is an intangible link between the body and Pure Consciousness. It is not real. So long as one does not look closely it continues to give trouble. But when one looks for it, it is found to not exist. 

Ramana Maharshi

Good job Bindi

[3bob]

also for a renunciate to deny or belittle house-holder dharma is as foolish as a house-holder to deny or belittle renunciate dharma

[Pilgrim]

also for a renunciate to deny or belittle house-holder dharma is as foolish as a house-holder to deny or belittle renunciate dharma

Depends, on if the renunciantes are true sheep or wolves in sheeps clothing bleating Kriyaaaa, Kriyaaa!!!!!

[dwai]

Depends, on if the renunciantes are true sheep or wolves in sheeps clothing bleating Kriyaaaa, Kriyaaa!!!!!

Real renunciates are ferocious tigers. They obliterate your limited sense of being

[Spotless]

Quoted from the original dialog quoted by Dwai above from Papaji:

 

"Spontaneous, without involvement in the thought process.
No thought process will be there--only direct sponta¬neous activity without thinking.

First I think and then I act.
This process will be gone and direct activity will be there according to circumstances.
In this process even the memory won't be there either.
You don't need memory.
Memory is ego itself."

 

This is the hairy stuff  - this is in the fringes - it is the pith in this - hard to hear and see and immediately skipped over - but it is the diamond - the other stuff is something we think we understand - and this looks like a misprint but it is not -it is literal. This is what an Awakened teacher says - this is what is not heard.

Edited February 3, 2017 by Spotless

[3bob]

if Spirit only remains above and or beyond (or un-manifest) then there no is action that can take place;  but since Spirit also "goes far" and "returns" there are realms and actions in them.  Thus it is said Tao gave birth to the One, The Two, The Three and all else.

 

And who knowing that would dismiss, put down or try to alter the going far and returning?

Edited February 3, 2017 by 3bob

[C T]

Ego arises where duality resides.

[3bob]

whose fault is that CT?

[Marblehead]

seems our minds give rises to language, concepts and words.... and then the idea of ego leads to the need to awakening ego...  

 

I think that ego existed even prior to language.  Ego presented the need for language.

[Marblehead]

Ego arises where duality resides.

 

That would be in the brain upon recognition of "I" and "Not-I".

 

Kill the brain and you will kill the ego.

[3bob]

thought forms do not need a dense or only physical medium per-se to exist in (for instance a brain), they exist in more subtle mediums and get around a lot there - obviously.

[3bob]

Om and all of its derivative's exist,  Shakti and all of its derivative's exist.

 

there is not a Guru or a Buddha (with the term 'Buddha' being in no way limited only to Buddhism) without their Mother who exists.

[Bindi]

These are two very different approaches to dealing with ego, Ramana says examine ego (the wave), Papaji says identify yourself as the Self (ocean) not the wave (ego). To me the teacher and the disciple are looking in different directions.

 

“The Self is pure consciousness and non-dual. It cannot say ‘I’.

All that is required is only to look closely and the ghost [ego] vanishes.

So long as one does not look closely it continues to give trouble. But when one looks for it, it is found to not exist – Ramana

 

You have to identify yourself and say, "I am the ocean."
... You have to be ocean itself.
You are the ocean.
When a wave arises [ego], you be under the wave – Papaji

Edited February 4, 2017 by Bindi

[Marblehead]

Identifying self as ocean is still ego.  Any self recognition is ego.

 

The use of the word "I" is ego.

 

The use of the word "you" is still ego as it separates "I" from "you".

 

Any recognition of self is ego whether it be the wave or the ocean.

[3bob]

pure consciousness without knowing it-Self is an oxymoron.  (for such is not a limited, localized or particular "I" based on ego or mind but an I or Om beyond those) 

[Pilgrim]

Real renunciates are ferocious tigers. They obliterate your limited sense of being

So far all I have met were frauds.