On Ego

On Ego's Design

Insofar as we are a part of the Divine, God, and insofar as there is Divine design, a plan, we are a part of such design. Inasmuch, we are of design. To embody such design fully without attachment is to reflect a complete state of Being. We however, often form attachments to such design and aspects thereof. Any such attachments thence inhibits fully being of design in all of its manifestations. Wherein we experience such attachment, we find we have created ego and thus distinction. As such, we inhibit involution and our return to the highest high. One could ask, is not attachment a part of design? Certainly one could be attached to this very idea, rendering them unable to conceive differently. Wherefrom attachment is derived in ego relative to self, it reflects ego's attempt to exist distinctly. From attachment, we resist change and thus experience conflict. Certainly, such experience could, as a part of design, prompt a desire for involution. Such prompting would yield impetus for involution rather than involution itself. Insofar as involution is a part of design, one must not become mindfully attached to involution.

On Resisting Ego

Do not combat or resist ego. To do so only creates another form of ego, one opposite from the resisted form. That is, to have identity, one must have form. Such form reflects a concept of self. This concept, insofar as it is created, understood, and reinforced by the mind cannot be experienced separate from ego. Thus, the difficulties with ego do not rest in the definition of such ego. Rather, such difficulties exist with our association with such definition, such ego. If one dislikes the current definition of self evident in ego, one may try to change. Any change here as a change of mind relative to the concept of self and ego merely reflects a shift within the same concept.

Recognize it, though not as Self, thereby validating it; yet take no action to validate its purpose thereby invalidating it. We should not identify with it except as though it is a stranger apart from ourselves in ourselves as a creation of our own mind. Insofar as we use our mind to understand and evaluate self, we cannot escape defining self and affixing our identity on such constructs of the mind. If ego is a product of the mind and ego serves itself, the mind also must have its own course and cause separate from Self. Therefore, neither can be trusted to reveal Self over self. Self must be realized whereas self merely needs to be imagined and constructed. Wherein we experience and subscribe to nationality, culture, gender, and other forms existent in the human condition, we ourselves are conditioned in such constructions of self.

To illustrate such conditioning, I shall illuminate some of the variances existent in gender concepts. Gender merely reflects categories, thus definitions, thus expectations we can use mindfully to evaluate self, perceive, understand, evaluate, and judge others. Gender as a measure of experience and evaluation should be consistent and unchanging such that all subject to such measures would be evaluated similarly and fairly. However, we find too many variances across time and space. Dependent on the culture examined, the concept of gender differs. Likewise, some cultures have more than two genders. Depending on the perceived age of an individual, each gender conditions new expectations. Depending on the century, certainly the concepts resident in gender differ. In these few statements, we begin to see that gender is as arbitrary as the mindful activity of imagination. That is, as a concept, gender and its specifics as male or female, shift over time, culture, generation, and situation to reflect the needs of the mind's construction. That which changes cannot be absolute. In Self we find such absolute for no change is possible whereas in self, we find change and transformation relative to experience. Thus, such concepts of the mind change and reflect self in illusion rather than Self in Absolute, the Divine Condition.

By combating ego, we are validating its purpose thereby confirming its existence. Would we fight an imaginary monster that we knew did not exist? Not except for play. Certainly as the ego itself has no substance, it does not exist except in imagination, as illusion. Thus, fighting and resisting it gives it substance and thus greater existence in experience.

Through no resistance and association, in time as ego receives nothing of value from you, it will cease to exist. Insofar as ego is of our own creation, withdrawing the source of creation will dissipate its hold on us, our attachment to it, and eventually dissipating it all together. Anáma-Rúpam. Ω