Ego as a Construct, Not a Self
El ego como constructo, no como un yo
A student describes seeing the assumption of a central "me" as the root of all other misinterpretations. The teacher explores how this construct functions, why it is neither self nor not-self, and what happens when it pauses.
Ego as a Construct, Not a Self
A student describes seeing the assumption of a central "me" as the root of all other misinterpretations. The teacher explores how this construct functions, why it is neither self nor not-self, and what happens when it pauses.
When we were doing the talk, you spoke about misinterpretation. At least where I am now, it seems that the most fundamental misinterpretation is the one you were describing: the mapping of "me." That is the spine, the column of all the others, of all the other misinterpretations, because that center is not there. I just feel the importance of looking at that specific one. It is so strange, because so many assumptions are made out of that one. I have seen them, and it is amazing.
In other circles, you could refer to that as ego. I don't use the word, because it brings up a lot of connotation. There is a lot of theory and mind-stuff around what ego is. I am simply describing the experience of it, so that it is known as it appears in experience, in reality, rather than as something that invokes more thoughts about it.
What I am talking about is seeing that ego is a construct, not the self. It is also not not-the-self. The problem is when we fall to one or another interpretation.
Neither self nor not-self
One can fall, for example, to the interpretation that ego is not the self, and only not the self. Then someone might say, "Ego made me do this." That is another trap, another misinterpretation. Ego is not the self, therefore ego made me do something. It was not me; it forced me. Ego forced me to say something mean to you. A good excuse, but that is exactly what we are pointing to.
What also matters is that, as we have more and more glimpses of "not I," when the construct reappears, all that needs to be known is that it is not the self. It is not not-the-self either. It is like a hand. It is a function. You could say it is as much the self as this thermos, and even more so than your left hand. It is more central, more important than your left hand, but it is not the self, and not not-the-self.
The root assumption: something to get, something to avoid
All the attempts to change experience, to judge that this should be different, that it should be this way or that, come out of the assumption that there is a center. The root assumption is that there is something to avoid and something to get. When I finally avoid the thing I need to avoid and get the thing I need, that will make the sense of self permanently safe, permanently stable, permanently okay.
But that sense of self is a construct. It is a thought process, what I am calling ego now, though I rarely do. It is the false self, false in the sense that it is not what I am. When I believe that is all I am, then I am that and nothing else. Simultaneously, the nature of what I think I am is very unstable, because it is thoughts. It is a thought construct. So there is a constant restlessness, a constant fear. Everything is a threat. That is what the Buddha called dukkha, dissatisfaction.
How dukkha ends
The Buddha said there is a solution: dukkha can end. That dissatisfaction can end. It is not by eliminating ego. It is not by killing ego. That is a bit of a misinterpretation of what happens, though it is not far off. It is going through the experience of what the mental construct, the ego, experiences as if it were dying. It comes to an end consciously. The process of ego ending, ego stopping, is experienced. But then it does not die, because it was never a thing that was alive. It comes back. It just pauses.
When it pauses while we are conscious, that is a glimpse. That is a seeing of true nature. Ego has stopped. The mental construct of a separate, limited self has stopped, and I am still here. But it is not through a thought process. It is simply: I am, and the conscious construct has stopped. That is the revelation. I am not what I thought I was, and I am not bound by the thought construct. My destiny is not bound to the mental construct.
The construct as function
So what you are seeing is the core of all illusion: that imagined subjectivity, which can then be seen as a useful function, like the hand. When you are not using the hand, it goes into the background of experience. Similarly, the subjectivity can go into the background of experience. It is not the foundation of reality as subject and objects.
What I am noticing is that how we function seems to be much more mysterious than what I thought. My idea of it was all based on that same assumption we are discussing now, this entity, everything that society teaches you. And the actual functioning seems to be much more mysterious than that.
Yes. Let us leave space now, if anyone else wants to speak. Thank you.