Yes, all those things you guys are telling me to do is what I’m already doing. I came to the conclusion that having a small ego was impairing my usefullness to society. So that’s what I meant by becoming an actor. I’m emulating the useful parts of the guys who have a big ego, without actually having one.
PS it’s never really been “better” having a small ego; always an impediment. There’s a good reason for the ego. I do think however that it may be better to artificially develop one rather than being controlled by one. We’ll see.
Glad to hear that Ether… 
I think there is a distinct difference between confidence and ego. To me, ego is acting, confidence just is. The more I practice the more confident I become in everything I do because the “Doubting Thomas” voice of my ego has less influence.
A
Thanks Louis.
Shanti, problems of semantics again. Words, words, words. One person is meaning one thing by ‘small ego’ and another a different thing.
Perhaps ‘insufficiently assertive’ is what is being meant by ‘small ego’ in certain places here. The remedy for that is being sufficiently assertive – no more, no less.
When people say ‘big ego’ that might mean overly-narcissistic (having a strong sense that one is special). You can certainly be overly- narcissistic and still be insufficiently self-assertive, meaning you can have a ‘big ego’ within one meaning of the phrase, and a ‘small ego’ within the other. Witnesss the Superhero stories – spiderman, superman – they play to the fantasy of being superbly special, despite being walked-on in everyday life.
By the way, even narcissism, within bounds, may be OK and good – it’s certainly normal. A certain amount of feeling of one’s specialness may be part of what makes many of us tick. This could be part of what is called ‘healthy pride’. I can enjoy the Superhero stories or movies myself – I know I am getting into a fantasy world and I enjoy the ride.
So what I am saying is to become sufficiently self-assertive (if you are low on that). But that does not at all mean letting narcissism (feeling of specialness and attachment to it) get out of bounds.
So in short, become sufficiently self-assertive, and also work on not feeling special or superior.
Now, I’d love to talk more but some Evil Genius is trying to cut the Brooklyn Bridge in two with a laser. Gotta get into my polyester suit and save all those people.
Ego is ego. It’s a hindrance. More and more we merge the self into Self and let go of false identification and the little self becomes a personality of Self. More and more we find proper and useful abilities to interact on the stage before us as actors in a divine play. We drop our hold on things and Self will show us the way to function effectively from a place of evenmindedness. Become a superman 
Alan, I’d take the position of ‘conditional agreement’ with what you said. Yes, within certain meanings of the word, ego is a hindrance. We have to be really careful though with where we go with an idea like that. Mustn’t take a gross approach – must not get out our shotgun and go out hunting the ego – if we do, the ego will position itself perfectly to assure its safety despite our hunt – as the holder of the shotgun.
I think that gross approaches (including enemy-making with the ego) often do damage. Sly, sophisticated approaches are sometimes better: make friends with the ego. Know it well. Infiltrate it. Be alternatively easy on it then ferociously harsh if necessary: Give it some play. Then shock it with reality again and again. Educate it with the truth until it has no chance but to grow up.
Words are often deceptive and inadequate. This thing we call ego is really an immature personality. One does not actually remove an immature personality – a shotgun to the head would do that but it is not helpful. It ultimately fixes by becoming mature and facing the truth.
Yes David, I agree, sly, sophisticated approaches, or even eye’s open approaches are good.
I don’t believe I was advocating enemy-making, violent or shot-gun approaches
To me ego is more than an immature personality. For me ego is the combination of everything and anything that is identified with outside of the realm of Self (God-consciousness?). To me ego is a ‘false’ or ‘separate’ identity.
Peace, alan
Alan said:
To me ego is more than an immature personality. For me ego is the combination of everything and anything that is identified with outside of the realm of Self (God-consciousness?). To me ego is a ‘false’ or’separate’ identity.
Is this just semantic mismatch? The ‘fully mature personality’ of which I was speaking incorporates the idea of being free of a ‘false’ or ‘separate’ identity. So I think we are just speaking with different meanings to our words, not disagreeing.
What is useful about seeing ‘ego-free’ and ‘fully mature’ as being contained in each other is that we can understand that being free of a false or separate identity is one of the growth-potentials of the personality. It isn’t something that comes magically from outside our human or biological potential. It isn’t alien, or coming from anyone else. Nothing which is not-real or not-true or not-native or not-us has to be taken on or accepted by us.
Like those computers that have a little label that says ‘Intel Inside’, our beings have a little label on them that says ‘Divine Reality’ inside.
I don’t have any problem being sufficiently assertive, or getting what I deserve, as that’s a problem I worked on many years ago.
The type of ego-acting that i’m working on now is self-advertising. It’s possible that many of you aren’t exposed to the kind of situations that require that, and it wasn’t natural for me either. But there are times when it’s absolutely necessary. In my line of work I meet strangers whose trust I must gain in a short period of time. Also i often work with “good old boy” network type of egomaniacs who require that posturing on first meetings, and periodically thereafter. i’ve gotten pretty good at it now, and see it as a type of communication required by certain other people. i’ve gotten where I can see in their faces if they require that, and I launch into my BS. It feels like I’m translating into another language. Don’t really like it though.
Hi Ether, I see where you’re coming from.
More power to you in figuring out how to maneuver. It can be quite a game it appears. I hope you can find more enjoyment in the act since it is what you must do for now
Peace, alan
Hi Etherfish I think that you are quite right.The so called popular Gods have been created by the imagination of man. Basically it is a product of our hopes and fears.The real God or Brahman is not a product of imagination and is what is left after all thoughts have run out.That God or Brahman doesnt have any image and non can see him for he is our very self.
mystiq
Very nice mystiq, thank you for bringing us back to such a nice ‘image’
Hello Mystiq, nice. I agree.
In it’s true meaning, the word ‘God’ isn’t really even a noun. Nouns refer to things, which are forms in pure consciousness, Brahman.
Names are also forms. God has no single name, because having any single thing is also a form, distinct from its opposite.
I hate to bring this up at this point because Mystiq had so nicely returned us to the original topic, and the ego subject was a tangent. But I wanted to add what I think the true purpose of the ego is. It has gotten ugly in a lot of people, but it really has a use.
My belief is what it does is give one power in times of extreme need. It is a built in weapon against utter fear. The reason it seems to be so much in opposition to our spiritual aspirations is that if one has enough faith in God, the ego isn’t necessary. but it is sort of a kind tool given by God if someone is in extreme fear, and doesn’t have any faith. I know i have been in that spot before, and anyone can end up there for a time. The ego tells you everything is OK when there is absolutely no reason to believe it is.
I’ve seen people being given facts that should absolutely destroy them, like everything has gone bad, and it’s your fault type of thing. and these people with a big ego refuse to believe it, and keep an even keel. this could save people’s lives in times of extreme danger by enabling them to operate instead of deciding that they are “already dead”.
So I believe the ego is a sort of compassionate life saver God gave us for people who have nothing left in their lives. It shows he cares even about those who may never accept him.
Ok thanks mystiq for returning to the original subject so nicely:
“The real God or Brahman is not a product of imagination and is what is left after all thoughts have run out.That God or Brahman doesn’t have any image and none can see him for he is our very self.”
And which God is a product of the imagination? The Quaran and the Bible say God is the infinite entirety (Sura 57:3 and Revelation 22:13 respectively), and that is what Brahman is.
All religions are one and have come from the same source. The differences are largely in the cultures of the peoples. The vast majority of people in this dark age misinterpret the scriptures… because they look but do not see… they listen but they do not hear… Tamas and Rajas dominate our time, should we judge the holy scriptures because of this?
And about the Ego… isn’t that what we are trying to eliminate in spiritual practice? From the ego come all our desires and desires in this temporary world always lead to suffering… aren’t we looking for eternal peace? In Unity with God there is no room for ego as you are part of all and all is part of you…
Chiron said:
Ego… isn’t that what we are trying to eliminate in spiritual practice
Well, maybe, depending on what ‘ego’ means. I’m wary of concepts like ‘eliminate the ego’ unless there is a very clear meaning of ‘eliminate the ego’ involved.
The obvious questions are, what is the ego? There is a huge number of intertwined mechanisms bundled together in what we call ego. Some good, some bad, some essential. Which of these should be eliminated? Which of them can be eliminated?
And then, if we do know what to eliminate in ‘eliminate the ego’, do we know how to eliminate it?
So I personally stay away from ‘eliminate the ego’. I would prefer to cast it in terms of spiritual maturity – a willingness to percieve reality as it is.
Ego is what makes meme and youyou. If we didn’t have ego, and experienced 24/7 the Oneness of which we’ve all had minute glimpses, the infrastructure of our current existence would collapse in short time. Economies would crash, institutions would collapse, the Church would become obsolete. Societies have been built on the premise that there is an ‘I’ to protect, and thus we exist with invisible walls which separate us from each other. That’s the ego. When those walls come down, it’s a beautiful thing on a personal level, and even on a community level, but on a national or global level, there wouild be big trouble. I wonder what would happen in a certain war that’s going on right now, if everyone involved had the sudden and profound realization that they’re fighting against themselves, and that we’re all One? In the moment, it would be a beautiful thing, but then?
Meg, in such a dream I would hope that global cooperation and sharing of abundance would ensue, starting at the local level and building onward…
light and love,
Kathy
I’d hope so too, Kathy. And in the absence of separation between one human and the next, maybe it could happen, but we’d be reformulating existence as we know it, so it would be an arduous, painstaking task. It’s a fantasy that we’ll never realize, as we’re so entrenched in ego that it’s not merely a nuisance, like a broken toe, but an inescapable condition. It’s as if when we’re born we’re handed an assignment: Here’s a life, here’s your ego, see what you can do with it. In other words, it’s another tool for spiritual growth.
There are enormous problems of language and concept underlying all this. What does ‘not having an ego’ mean to you? Having this Oneness? Being enlightened?
There is plenty of ‘not having an ego’ that is not oneness or enlightened-ness. Some mentally ill people don’t have an ego in any useful sense. When we are young enough as children, we don’t have an ego (within some meanings of the word). Take enough drugs and your ego is temporarily not active, but you may be even worse to have around.
Zombies don’t have an ego, and they still cause problems by eating people, and causing traffic jams. Zombie-movies in general are an eye-opener if you think that not having an ego is a solution to world problems. I recommend particularly, ‘Shawn of the Dead’.
Why do we cast it in terms of ‘not having an ego’? Do we know what we are talking about? Or are we creating the kind of problems mentioned by Frank in his recent post about ‘withdrawal from the senses?’.
In other words, any conceptualization of ‘not having an ego’ is likely to be at best inaccurate, at worst wrong or useless; the enlightened state is what it is: ‘not having an ego’ seems a dodgy simplification.
What do you think?