Thursday, October 11, 2007 at 1:01am
Ego: An object that cannot change
Column: Spiritual Psychology
Last week I wrote about the self that is embraced by most popular Western psychologies in which ego and consciousness are one. That ego consciousness is all about ME. In contrast, the higher consciousness of spiritual traditions — what I call omni consciousness — is seen as the overarching ground of consciousness that is formless awareness. It is the subjective ground of consciousness. In omni consciousness there is no me vs. you. That's why so many spiritual and religious traditions call higher consciousness the route to creating one world. If you and me are part of the same universal consciousness, then how can there be divisiveness and violence against the other? In this view, ego consciousness is just one manifestation of the higher, or ground, of consciousness.
While we perceive ourselves as the concrete me ego identity, that me, on closer examination, is just a thought. The ego as an entity cannot be found. In fact, the me that I imagined as a child does not exist any longer. The me of today is quite different and will change throughout the life cycle. Yet we desperately cling to the illusion of a concrete stable me entity, because we know of no other ground of being. Western psychologies that give ego consciousness exclusive ownership of consciousness reflect that view, as illustrated by the quote in last week's column from two prominent psychologists pronouncing that ego was the beginning and end of consciousness.
The notion of an impersonal awareness consciousness is threatening, because it is experienced as a loss of self. "If I am not going to be ME, then who am I?" A woman once said to me, "But I love my ego. It's what gets me all the things I need and want — it's a dog-eat-dog world out there, and if you don't fight for yourself, you'll be a loser."
Although we might argue about the "dog-eat-dog" notion, the woman is not entirely wrong. The ego is a vehicle for navigating the physical world. That being said, the ego as your sole pilot through life poses limitations. First, few get all the things they want for the imagined me satisfaction. Then, as spiritual teachers have noted, even when they do get what they desire or dream about, it's common to see a return to square one where more needing and wanting erupts. Why this happens reveals the nature of the ego as an object rather than a subject.
I was first introduced to this important distinction between subject and object in the discourses of the Indian sage Nisargadatta Maharaj (author of "I Am That") — he called the split, phenomenon vs. noumenon. In Nisargadatta's worldview there is only one consciousness. The "I Amness" or ground of consciousness (the noumenon) gives rise to various manifestations of consciousness (the phenomenon). The ego then emerges as one projection of the subjective consciousness. As such, the ego is an object, not a subject. Yet our conscious presence makes us feel and believe that the ego is a subject. That conscious presence tied to the ego then generates the illusion that the ego is the totality of consciousness — the view embodied in Western psychologies. This important distinction between self as ego object and self as subject explains the limitations of the ego and much of the pain and suffering associated with it. As an object — one manifestation of the subjective source of consciousness — the ego, like any object, is fixed and limited. Once an object is created, it can perform its designated functions effectively but it cannot radically change. While a toaster and a train have the same energy source, the toaster cannot take you from New York to Chicago. Yet something like that is precisely what we try to do with the ego. We want our ego to change, to grow and to become — to become something beyond its structural design. But as a fixed object it can't. No matter how much you beat up on your ego, it's the shadow of the light and cannot come to life. Analyze it, modify its behavior, or alter the beliefs of the ego object, but it remains basically the same object — the toaster will not fly, and the tail cannot wag the dog. Even when we do experience some change, we are prone to feel anxious because it doesn't feel like me (the familiar fixed object) and we swiftly return to the familiar object we know as me.
But there is a way out of the dilemma. Unlike the case of physical objects (like the toaster), once we understand the relationship of the ego object to its source — omni consciousness — and that we are both, we have the option of returning to our subjective source. In doing so, we can then see the possibility of creating and modifying objects like our ego. The ego object, then, is no longer a limitation or threat — figure and ground have been reversed and the ego is seen for what it is: one manifestation of our subjective consciousness. Nothing needs to be given up. We can comfortably be both. We can then be the ego when it serves us in the world, but we do not have to define ourselves by it. Or as Sathya sai Baba said in one of last week's quotes: Don't get attached to the ego. We have within us a firmer ground.
Understanding the relationship of the ego object to the ground of consciousness can also bridge the divide between psychologies that are ego-based and spiritual traditions that are rooted in omni consciousness. No need for a declaration of war between ego and omni consciousness, forcing a choice that sets up battle lines. The division is a false one that can be healed by rejoining two parts of a common whole.
In my book "Escape Your Own Prison: Why We Need Spirituality and Psychology to Be Truly Free" I go into much greater detail on the implications of self as subject or object. Also, Chapter 4, "Psychological Birth and the Spiritual Self," traces the origins in psychological development that compel us to embrace the ego object and abandon omni consciousness right from the get-go.
— — —
In case you missed the last three related columns:
"Escaping the prison of the self"
"If you saw the truth, would you go for it?"
And, "To ego or not to ego, that's a question?"
— — —
(My book "Escape Your Own Prison: Why We Need Spirituality and Psychology to e Truly Free" is now available at Amazon.com, Barnes & Noble.com and other major book outlets.)
— — —
Bernard Starr, Ph.D., formerly professor of developmental and educational psychology at the City University of New York, now teaches "Spirituality in Film" and leads "The Spiritual Forum" at Marymount Manhattan College. In addition to his work in radio, he is a longtime contributor of commentary and opinion articles to numerous major publications. He is also the main United Nations representative for the Institute of Global Education that founded the Mucherla Global School in Mucherla, India. His book "Escape Your Own Prison: Why We Need Spirituality and Psychology to be Truly Free" has been published by Rowman & Littlefield. He can be reached at {email OmniCns@aol.com}OmniCns@aol.com{/email}. © Copyright 2007 by Bernard Starr.
While we perceive ourselves as the concrete me ego identity, that me, on closer examination, is just a thought. The ego as an entity cannot be found. In fact, the me that I imagined as a child does not exist any longer. The me of today is quite different and will change throughout the life cycle. Yet we desperately cling to the illusion of a concrete stable me entity, because we know of no other ground of being. Western psychologies that give ego consciousness exclusive ownership of consciousness reflect that view, as illustrated by the quote in last week's column from two prominent psychologists pronouncing that ego was the beginning and end of consciousness.
The notion of an impersonal awareness consciousness is threatening, because it is experienced as a loss of self. "If I am not going to be ME, then who am I?" A woman once said to me, "But I love my ego. It's what gets me all the things I need and want — it's a dog-eat-dog world out there, and if you don't fight for yourself, you'll be a loser."
Although we might argue about the "dog-eat-dog" notion, the woman is not entirely wrong. The ego is a vehicle for navigating the physical world. That being said, the ego as your sole pilot through life poses limitations. First, few get all the things they want for the imagined me satisfaction. Then, as spiritual teachers have noted, even when they do get what they desire or dream about, it's common to see a return to square one where more needing and wanting erupts. Why this happens reveals the nature of the ego as an object rather than a subject.
I was first introduced to this important distinction between subject and object in the discourses of the Indian sage Nisargadatta Maharaj (author of "I Am That") — he called the split, phenomenon vs. noumenon. In Nisargadatta's worldview there is only one consciousness. The "I Amness" or ground of consciousness (the noumenon) gives rise to various manifestations of consciousness (the phenomenon). The ego then emerges as one projection of the subjective consciousness. As such, the ego is an object, not a subject. Yet our conscious presence makes us feel and believe that the ego is a subject. That conscious presence tied to the ego then generates the illusion that the ego is the totality of consciousness — the view embodied in Western psychologies. This important distinction between self as ego object and self as subject explains the limitations of the ego and much of the pain and suffering associated with it. As an object — one manifestation of the subjective source of consciousness — the ego, like any object, is fixed and limited. Once an object is created, it can perform its designated functions effectively but it cannot radically change. While a toaster and a train have the same energy source, the toaster cannot take you from New York to Chicago. Yet something like that is precisely what we try to do with the ego. We want our ego to change, to grow and to become — to become something beyond its structural design. But as a fixed object it can't. No matter how much you beat up on your ego, it's the shadow of the light and cannot come to life. Analyze it, modify its behavior, or alter the beliefs of the ego object, but it remains basically the same object — the toaster will not fly, and the tail cannot wag the dog. Even when we do experience some change, we are prone to feel anxious because it doesn't feel like me (the familiar fixed object) and we swiftly return to the familiar object we know as me.
But there is a way out of the dilemma. Unlike the case of physical objects (like the toaster), once we understand the relationship of the ego object to its source — omni consciousness — and that we are both, we have the option of returning to our subjective source. In doing so, we can then see the possibility of creating and modifying objects like our ego. The ego object, then, is no longer a limitation or threat — figure and ground have been reversed and the ego is seen for what it is: one manifestation of our subjective consciousness. Nothing needs to be given up. We can comfortably be both. We can then be the ego when it serves us in the world, but we do not have to define ourselves by it. Or as Sathya sai Baba said in one of last week's quotes: Don't get attached to the ego. We have within us a firmer ground.
Understanding the relationship of the ego object to the ground of consciousness can also bridge the divide between psychologies that are ego-based and spiritual traditions that are rooted in omni consciousness. No need for a declaration of war between ego and omni consciousness, forcing a choice that sets up battle lines. The division is a false one that can be healed by rejoining two parts of a common whole.
In my book "Escape Your Own Prison: Why We Need Spirituality and Psychology to Be Truly Free" I go into much greater detail on the implications of self as subject or object. Also, Chapter 4, "Psychological Birth and the Spiritual Self," traces the origins in psychological development that compel us to embrace the ego object and abandon omni consciousness right from the get-go.
— — —
In case you missed the last three related columns:
"Escaping the prison of the self"
"If you saw the truth, would you go for it?"
And, "To ego or not to ego, that's a question?"
— — —
(My book "Escape Your Own Prison: Why We Need Spirituality and Psychology to e Truly Free" is now available at Amazon.com, Barnes & Noble.com and other major book outlets.)
— — —
Bernard Starr, Ph.D., formerly professor of developmental and educational psychology at the City University of New York, now teaches "Spirituality in Film" and leads "The Spiritual Forum" at Marymount Manhattan College. In addition to his work in radio, he is a longtime contributor of commentary and opinion articles to numerous major publications. He is also the main United Nations representative for the Institute of Global Education that founded the Mucherla Global School in Mucherla, India. His book "Escape Your Own Prison: Why We Need Spirituality and Psychology to be Truly Free" has been published by Rowman & Littlefield. He can be reached at {email OmniCns@aol.com}OmniCns@aol.com{/email}. © Copyright 2007 by Bernard Starr.