Wednesday, March 18, 2009

EGO DYNAMICS: Master Your Contextualized Experience






The ego-self is nothing more than a comprehensive and all-encompassing experience of the 'world' and the 'others' who seem to inhabit it.

It’s not “real’ in any absolute sense, except in the context of an ego-self demanding and contextualizing it as ‘real’ (I am assuming that you consider your ‘self’ real).

This experience of ‘reality’ is what the ancient wisdom traditions refer to as “illusion.” However, for centuries this reference has been rather inconsequential to the grand scheme of reality as the same experiences are compulsively repeated, on and on, ad nauseam. This is because the so-called “illusion” is contextualized by the ego-self (“you”) as a ‘reality’ that is deeply engaging and, therefore, is experienced as anything but illusory. This creates expectation as to the parameters of your experience. Consider how rarely your experiences deviate from your repertoire of expectation.

Teaching that your experience of reality is an “illusion” encourages disengaging from the richness of that experience because, as they teach, it is not ‘real’ but an “illusion.” Yet, the teachings essentially seek to aid you, because within this "illusion," that the ego-self contextualizes as “real,” comes a great deal of attendant suffering. Suffering that you experience as personal and as related to others and the world. Therefore, it would seem logical that the less engaged you are with the “illusion” of reality the less suffering you will experience. Anyone who claims that seeking "enlightenment" has nothing to do with an escape from suffering is fooling you and merely demonstrates that they are compromising with truth in their addiction to the ancient "enlightenment" agendas.

Nevertheless, the contradiction is that any reduction of suffering through disengaging merely further reinforces the experience of suffering as 'real.' Why else would you desperately seek a way out, if the suffering were not so vividly 'real'? From these ancient teachings, we have large pockets of the collective participating in 'insight practices' to aid in understanding this ancient teaching of illusory reality (maya).

But what drives them to seek an exit are the experiences of suffering that they have made real.

Note that to contextualize your experience of reality as "illusion" you must detach from it through practices that essentially seek to aid in attaining insight into the nature of reality as “illusion.” Once again, this engages you in a reinforcing circularity. Seek to understand it as illusion and you make it real simply through the desire to know it as not real or illusion.

However, what you may come to realize is that 'reality' is nothing more than experience (internal and external) that you have contextualized as 'real.' This does not deny your experience but puts it in the proper perspective.

Although the insight practitioners feel the outcome is worthwhile, the world is seemingly unaffected by these ancient esoteric wisdom teachings which attempt to countermand and essentially annihilate all your attempts at controlling your ‘reality.’

Control is anathema to the eastern religious ideologies. Yet, non-control is anathema to the ego-self.

This hypocrisy is unavoidable as you engage in practices that seek to inform you of the "illusion," yet still find yourself destitute due to the current "economic crisis." If you have a family to maintain, embracing the ideology that reality is an illusion does little to alleviate your fears for the future. Such fear can only obstruct your plans to attain some awakening insight into the actual nature of reality.

I would suggest that if you decide to invest belief in an illusional reality, get some good life insurance for your family. Thus, when you finally exit the 'world,' at least they will be protected. In addition, if you wish to follow the ancient teachings I would advise you to physically disengage from your family and the world at large and seek residence at a local monastery where you can, based on the teachings by others who supposedly disengaged, physically and mentally disengage with the world you so desperately seek to exit.

CONTROL VS NO-CONTROL

Or you may wish to consider that reality is nothing more than experience that you contextualize as ‘real" and that it has no other 'substance' or' form' other than what you project upon that experience. In so doing you can seek variable degrees of control to that experience and your meditative insight practices can be tailored to this effect simply because:

You are cause.

All religious-spiritual paths assert either ‘control’ or ‘non-control’ in the search for greater insight into your “true-nature.” Yet, both seek to change your current experience from one of suffering to one of bliss. The problem with 'non-control' is that it contradicts your current efforts at seeking control and thereby reducing suffering through various actions upon 'reality.' These actions serve to magnify and reinforce your further attempts to reduce suffering through acting upon your world.

Did you consolidate all your credit cards to reduce your debt? Problem solved. Did marriage therapy help save your eroding marriage? Problem solved. Did medical treatment alleviate your symptoms? problem solved. Did you apologize for your error? problem solved. Notice how your acting upon reality and seeking to control conditions contradicts the eastern teachings that “thoughts arise,” and experiences simply occur, so just forget about it, you have NO CONTROL.

"But wait, I just got a new better paying job, so how can I have no control?"

You cannot avoid feeling hypocritical in your attempts to control parts of reality, while engaged in practices that assert non-control of the whole. In altering physical reality, what you are acting upon is nothing more than your ‘experience’ of a world, since ‘reality’ is nothing more than experience and has no physical properties other than the contexts and concepts of the ego-self.

Surrender 'sensation' as conduit for experience and seek change at the source.

Your experiences are impermanent and therefore, extremely malleable, but only by attaining the deep insight of yourself as causative agent can you 'act' upon your experience in knowing that the ego-self is causative agent of all your experiences.

However, the rub is that the ego-self employs the parameters of past experience to engage with future experiences of ‘self’ and ‘world’ and this speaks to the adage that “there is nothing new under the sun.” Therefore, the only way to engage with any changed experience of ‘reality’ is to disengage from past experience as that which informs the ego as to what can be expected in the future.

You may contend that you often engage with experiences that seems wholly unexpected. Yet, I would respond that every experience you have ever encountered is completely predictable and not unknown to an ego-self that only realizes itself through ever-changing experiences within the realm of expectation (death is the only experience the ego-self cannot predict, yet it does vigilantly prepare through various means for that end).

However, if past experience is composed primarily of denying ‘self’ as cause, why would that not continue to be the primary factor in all future experiences? In fact, discarding expectation built on past experience will eventually culminate in the most unexpected and surprising experience that could ever be constructed.

That of God.

You may ignore this theoretical proposition as patently absurd. However, keep in mind that what you consciously ignore now is solely based on expectation from past experience. The past informs what can be currently accepted as conventionally “real’ in this present moment. The ego-self allows nothing more than what it expects and prepares for and this severely limits what can be experienced now. Unfortunately, you will not resolve your experience of suffering by employing the same experiences that caused the suffering in the first place. You will need to leap beyond what you know and experience beyond the boundaries of everything you have ever been taught to experience as 'real.'

Nevertheless, what all the ancient masters teach is that eventually you will understand reality as nothing more than your self-constructed experience of a reality that essentially does not exist, except as an experience in your mind.

Master the dynamics of the ego-self and master your experience of reality.

Good Luck With That!

5 comments:

  1. hi Mike.
    wow - that was a lot of words...
    i read it all outloud.... and noticed what it felt like to speak the sounds... the vibration in the air and inside my head... vowels and consenents and the way i have been taught to place the inflections and syllables... dyNAMics...and read it again - and saw the font and the shape of the typed letters and the arrangement of symbols...
    and noticed how the arrangement of symbols and learned inflections of sound has translated into meaning somewhere in this being... and i find i can't hold onto that meaning very well - it slips away.
    i can comment a couple of things that stand out easily for me.
    first -
    "Nevertheless, what all the ancient masters teach is that eventually you will understand reality as nothing more than your self-constructed experience of a reality that essentially does not exist, except as an experience in your mind."

    and for me - this isn't quite true. so i would say that some ancient masters anyway - teach that reality is self-contructed experience that has no INDEPENDANT existance. It exists as it exists but is always relational and conditional - and therefore is always transient and empty of "true" separate existance... and this is the meaning of emptiness is form and form is emptiness.

    and second -
    "Master the dynamics of the ego-self and master your experience of reality."
    i entirely agree.
    happy equinox
    arpita (or christine - whatever you like)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Mike,

    As usual, you lucidly expose the subtle craftiness of the ego. What can we do about it?The ego will hijack even the intention to transcend the ego, and it loves spiritual concepts such as Oneness and 'reality is an illusion' and so forth. There of course isn't one answer, but I've found that avoiding solid beliefs can help. Reality is an illusion, Surrender, control/no control, etc. are only signposts until they become direct experience. As beliefs, they are ego traps.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Christine,

    I agree. A lot of blah, blah blah. But the post starts out short and sweet. unfortunately i keep adding to it, trying to have it all make sense, which is, most likely, a futile endeavor. Ha!
    I agree there is no independent 'self' nor is there an independent mind experiencing a 'reality.' Yet, the ego-self constructs experiences in order to maintain an experience of a separation 'selfhood.' Therefore, why not sculpt that which is "illusion" or, as ACIM and others would teach, seek to make it a "happy dream." In some way we need to realize we are not powerless but are undeniably causative. I guess that's the gist of all this blah, blah I write.
    Nevertheless, you make good points to mull over because essentially I'm developing this "off the cuff," so to speak. Kinda like "one day at a time." LOL!

    Thanks,
    mikeS

    ReplyDelete
  4. BTW, Christine, go to feedburner and burn a feed and get feed email so's I can have your posts emailed to me. Due to long work hours I don't get to surf the blogs and read the new posts hot off the presses unless they're emailed to me.

    Kaushik,

    I just subscribed to your email posts so I'll be into your stuff, which looks quite thought provoking.
    "direct experience"? Hmmmm...I'm mulling over that one. Do I not have direct experience of an embodied self? If i'm doing the dishes and thinking about my overdue bills am i not having a direct experience of contextualized thought?
    Maybe in the future you could post something on this concept of direct experience (or is it somehow non-conceptual). In addition, I'm also caught up in ego-contemplating this idea of "true nature." These specialized concepts really fascinate me which means they prompt me to want to 'deconstruct.'
    Sorry, it seems to be in my blood!

    Thanks,
    mikeS

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hey Mike,

    I look forward to your comments.

    Direct Experience is a matter of semantics. By Direct, I mean experiencing without identification with thought, beliefs and concepts. Doing the dishes with the full experience of doing the dishes.

    Specialized concepts are in fact what I'm trying to get away from. In words, "getting away from specialized concepts" is in fact just another concept. I don't know of a way to express the experience of direct experience, except to use concepts that point near the actual experience of it. So I use terminology like Direct Experience and True Nature. As concepts, these are ridiculous, because whatever we are is always our true nature, or we wouldn't be whatever we are and what we experience is always direct even when it is daydreaming. But as pointers--as concepts that point past other concepts--perhaps they are useful.

    ReplyDelete