Not out of the Picture

I receive a lot of thanks for the work done through Enter the New, but something that many remark about is that the ego is still in the picture. Immediately, the response comes, "What is the ego?

There are many different concepts regarding this word ego. Etymologically, ego means "I". Some teachers go directly to the doership aspect of I and invite investigation into whether there is any "I" there during the activity or whether "I" comes later. This is significant. If it comes later than all activity is egoless. is it not?

Another understanding of ego is mind. But just as in the case of a doer, no objective I or mind can be found. Only thoughts are found. We don't find any mind. Still, the investigation as to whether this separate objective "I" exists goes on.

When we look into it, it seems that ego, more than just the letter "I", is a tendency to objectify oneself, Through self-referencing ego comes into existence. If we stop self-referencing then self or ego is a non-reality. Right?

There is also the question of thinking and the ego being the first thought. Before the first thought, no ego exists. There is no separation. this can be realized. This is not a suggestion to keep thought from arising, that takes effort, and effort implies ego. So, ego cannot be gotten rid of by effort. Effort implies ego.

With all of these, the invitation is to look for the ego, and of course none can be found. However, the belief in ego remains, despite the experience of no mind, no I, no self, no object or whatever. There are many different ways to realize the truth of no I, but even after such realizations the belief in "I" often remains.

The assumption is that "I" is objective. No object of course can be found, but the belief that "I" is objective persists even after investigation, even after self-inquiry. The belief persists because there is a sense of "I", though no objective or perceivable "I".

My guess is that this sense remains because "I" is not a mistake after all. "I" is the result of the wish to diversify. Why the ego is so reluctant to die is, perhaps, the wrong question. Perhaps another question is why are we so eager to be rid of the personal. Why are we so eager to get rid of separation?

Oneness is great. Don't get me wrong, but it is just one perspective, relative from where one is looking. What's wrong with having both? What's wrong with individuality? What's wrong with differences, or a personal point of view?

What's wrong with self referencing? Is it really arrogant to say "I" did it. Is it delusional or just a different perspective? If nothing can be gained or lost, why do we insist on losing or dissolving the ego or the belief in a separate self?

A Christian mystic by the name of Thomas Merton once said. "If you give up everything, you gain everything." My question is have you given up everything and gained nothing or have you given up everything and gained everything? Did you merely give it up, or did you get it all back? Perhaps it's not the "nada" factor but the "everything" factor that is missing.