The Ego's Directly Experiencing "Direct Experience"

Are there some experiences that are not interpreted by the ego-self construct?

How can that be when, in fact, the ego-self defines experience, because it defines the individual ‘self’ that has an experience. In fact, couldn't we say that to have an "experience" there must be a defining or "framing" of the experience by the 'self' claiming the experience for itself?

In other words, for you to have an experience, there needs be an egoic defining of 'self' before the experience occurred. "you" have set the parameters for every experience you encounter, otherwise, it would not be encountered. Kinda like, "ho hum, la dee da, looks like everything is as usual... oops, what was that! "I" seem to have had an 'experience' of some sort... wow!" (of course, this is a oversimplification).

It seems to me as long as there is a defined "you,” all experiences will be defined by that very same "you," regardless of the content of the experience. What is an experience but 'thought' framed as an 'experience'? Or could it be an ‘experience’ framed as ‘thought’?

You can never know truth without doubt, since the moment the interpretation of truth is made by an ego-self package, doubt is inherent to the interpretation because the ego-self must doubt it exists in order to maintain existence. This is because the moment the ego asserts an absolute existence, or a 'knowing' completely devoid of all doubt, it must cease to exist, since the ego-self is always a relative approximation of itself.

Without relativity, there could be no "you."

We are all nothing but vague and obscure relative concepts of 'self.' There can be no clarity, ever. But, we will seek it and we must forever "seek, but NOT find." Finding anything absolute would immediately spell "your" doom.

Yet, maybe the clarity is in the doubt. I'm not so quick to dismiss thinking, although I do realize at some point thinking will most likely become extremely nonsensical (just read some of the posts on all those non-duality blogs you love so much). However, I think insanity is bit too overly vilified and possibly we all could benefit from some brief swims into the depths of madness (been there and back a few times myself).

Many teach that you should surrender the intellect and the ego’s need to categorize experience. But “who” is surrendering “what”? Here again we have a splitting-off of the experiencer from the experience, through the abnegation of ego-self. I am not 'this,' but 'this,' is a finite game with an outcome, whereas, "not this, not that" (neti, neti) will always keep the game in play.

Your ego loves when you attempt to surrender it, since what you're really doing is surrendering TO it.

The intellect is the ego and the ego is mind and both are nothing more than experience. Seek to reject parts and how can you experience the whole? Can there be a compartmentalizing of experience as if to say, this is egoic intellect and this is "direct experience"? Can there be experience unadulterated by interpretive functions?

Or, can there be a before, during and after to your "direct experience" of “awakening” or "enlightenment"? Who or what determines that? If you say, "once I was ignorant, but now am enlightened" that very statement asserts your continued attachment to time and negates any experience unconditioned by time.

But then, let’s say that this is true and that you can have your “direct experience” separate from the ego-self ("you"). It will be the ego that informs you of that very differentiation you attest to as separate from ego-self. Again, assert a before and an after to your "direct experience" and you prove your attachment to an identity in time, because to be in-time, you must identify with an anchor point or a "you."

But the "enlightened ones" do this all the time and we eat it up, because it's truly the breakfast of champions.

You must first know the ego-self before you can differentiate an experience as ‘not ego.’ In fact, without an ego, how would you ever realize 'egolessness.' This makes the ego a very valuable experience, so why do you wish to transcend what has determined your wish to transcend? (seems kinda silly when you get down to it).

Desire “transcendence” and you inadvertently reinforce the opposite. When you experience anything, you will incorporate the wholeness of the experience employing the whole mind, including your ego.

The ego is not meant to be excluded and that’s because nothing can ever be excluded! In addition, the ego can never be asserted as subordinate to some other 'experience' because this merely asserts inequality, which is a condition of time.

The Tao excludes NOTHING!

If you wish to classify certain, ‘special’ experiences as “awakening,” or "enlightenment" then by all means do so. If you wish to have a “direct experience,” as differentiated, sequestered and partitioned off from other 'experiences,' please feel free to have it. But, allow your whole experiential 'self' to have the experience fully and do not deny your ego is a part of that experience, otherwise the whole truth might be missed.

Good grief man, it was your ego that brought you this far, seems a bit disingenuous to trash it after all that work it did for "you"!


Image by Andy Clarkson - "Soul Searching"