Ah, the great cosmic joke: trying so hard to dissolve the ego that you build a shrine to its absence. The moment you think you've transcended, the ego smirks and hands you a certificate of enlightenment… signed by itself.
This is why the true sages just laugh. The more serious one gets about the spiritual path, the more likely they are to trip over their own robes.
If you ever catch yourself thinking, Wow, I’m really getting somewhere spiritually, congratulations—you’ve just walked into another trap. Now go sweep the temple floor, make some tea, and try again.
Enlightenment is such an ugly term. By its very definition it implies a finished state, but that’s bullshit. Aliveness… now that has a nice ring to it.
>You want to improve yourself by changing your consciousness. But the self that needs to be improved is the same one doing the improving.
I think there's an issue here. Changing your consciousness is precisely the goal of the self — the self tries to take things as "me" or "mine" and then exert control over them, which is what leads to craving for things to be different. So I agree there's a paradox here in that you can't get rid of self by self-ing. However, that doesn't mean there aren't other ways to get rid of self — those ways just won't involve trying to change anything.
This itself sounds paradoxical on the surface, so let me try and draw an example. Imagine you have a fire. That fire is the self. If you try to make it go away by blowing on it or poking the logs, you actually inflame it and make it bigger — any type of active change you make to the fire will be counterproductive to making it go out. So how can you make it go out? Understand that the fire is only there because there are conditions supporting it, namely blowing on it, poking it, and, most fundamentally, the wood that's burning. Understanding that, you can realize that the only way to make the fire go out is to stop trying to make it go out and just let it burn. Eventually, the fire will burn up all the remaining fuel and will go out on its own. There's no ego involved in letting the ego exhaust itself, but there is ego involved in trying to make the ego sustain itself in a specific way.
Returning to the passage I quoted, the root of the paradox, I think, is that you can't destroy the self by trying to make it a certain way — whatever way it is, it will still *be*. But since all conditioned things are impermanent (selves included), then by ceasing to try to make it a certain way, you let its impermanence play out, and eventually it just goes away on its own. The issue is that enlightenment is typically conceived as a particular, pleasant state of consciousness, when it is (according to the Early Buddhist Texts) the permanent *absence* of states of consciousness. Trying to make your experience pleasant, which is the job of the ego, is indeed antithetical to trying to let experience be whatever it will be until it entirely fades away on its own.
The moment the seeker says, “I must improve,” a hierarchy is born. The one who seeks improvement implicitly positions themselves above their previous state, and often above others. To desire purification already assumes impurity. To desire awakening already assumes superiority. This is the ego slipping in through the back door while we believe we’ve escorted it out through the front. There is almost a tragic sweetness to this, because even the most earnest longing for truth becomes alloyed with self-advancement the moment one claims to be on a “path.”
Spiritual arrogance is not a deviation from the journey; it is the shadow cast by the journey itself. The one who meditates, the one who fasts, the one who contemplates, the one who retreats from the world, their very practices risk becoming badges stitched into the fabric of identity. It is astonishing how quickly devotion can become performance, how subtly humility can become pride in its own softness, how quietly comparison infiltrates even the holiest aspirations. The ego does not always scream, sometimes it whispers in the background of everyactivity. It whispers precisely in those moments when we believe we are beyond it.
this is wrong on so many levels. first: in the mahayana (eg. zen) you don't negate the self or ego; you just find it to be empty and very subtle. and this is the paradox: it's like it's there, but then it isn't. second: why do you quote so many western writers? it's not that i think that enlightenment is a cultural thing: but there must be so many beautifull koans to quote. third: you can't get rid of your ego. you can just renounce samsara, develop bodhicitta, and discover shunyata. that's it! 😂
I've worked with many great spiritual masters. I have been doing the inner work for decades and there is no end. As mere mortals we will never get to a place of enlightenment. The more work we do the more humble we should become. Humility is an incredible surrender of sorts as we go down the spiritual path.
In the Law of One framework, Ego represents the Service to Self polarity, a lens of viewing life and responding to it from separation. Instead of focusing on 'dissolving' what cannot be dissolved because it is the operating program we as humans operate from by default, we can choose to respond from Unity.
Ah, the great cosmic joke: trying so hard to dissolve the ego that you build a shrine to its absence. The moment you think you've transcended, the ego smirks and hands you a certificate of enlightenment… signed by itself.
This is why the true sages just laugh. The more serious one gets about the spiritual path, the more likely they are to trip over their own robes.
If you ever catch yourself thinking, Wow, I’m really getting somewhere spiritually, congratulations—you’ve just walked into another trap. Now go sweep the temple floor, make some tea, and try again.
Enlightenment is such an ugly term. By its very definition it implies a finished state, but that’s bullshit. Aliveness… now that has a nice ring to it.
Learned this the hard way with LSD when I was 17. Zazen has been my primary practice since.
You should check out my Substack, we have a lot in common. I actually have some essays about Zen and LSD. Here's one of them: https://whatswhatwhoswho.substack.com/p/what-is-zen
have a look at my podcast please. Today we talk about Zen.Cheers.
>You want to improve yourself by changing your consciousness. But the self that needs to be improved is the same one doing the improving.
I think there's an issue here. Changing your consciousness is precisely the goal of the self — the self tries to take things as "me" or "mine" and then exert control over them, which is what leads to craving for things to be different. So I agree there's a paradox here in that you can't get rid of self by self-ing. However, that doesn't mean there aren't other ways to get rid of self — those ways just won't involve trying to change anything.
This itself sounds paradoxical on the surface, so let me try and draw an example. Imagine you have a fire. That fire is the self. If you try to make it go away by blowing on it or poking the logs, you actually inflame it and make it bigger — any type of active change you make to the fire will be counterproductive to making it go out. So how can you make it go out? Understand that the fire is only there because there are conditions supporting it, namely blowing on it, poking it, and, most fundamentally, the wood that's burning. Understanding that, you can realize that the only way to make the fire go out is to stop trying to make it go out and just let it burn. Eventually, the fire will burn up all the remaining fuel and will go out on its own. There's no ego involved in letting the ego exhaust itself, but there is ego involved in trying to make the ego sustain itself in a specific way.
Returning to the passage I quoted, the root of the paradox, I think, is that you can't destroy the self by trying to make it a certain way — whatever way it is, it will still *be*. But since all conditioned things are impermanent (selves included), then by ceasing to try to make it a certain way, you let its impermanence play out, and eventually it just goes away on its own. The issue is that enlightenment is typically conceived as a particular, pleasant state of consciousness, when it is (according to the Early Buddhist Texts) the permanent *absence* of states of consciousness. Trying to make your experience pleasant, which is the job of the ego, is indeed antithetical to trying to let experience be whatever it will be until it entirely fades away on its own.
This is by no means to say that I have gotten the self to go away. This is just what I'm working with. I wrote a piece on this topic, you can view it here if you'd like: https://ottotherenunciant.substack.com/p/the-negation-of-self
Great read 😊
https://substack.com/@johnshane1/note/c-102468195
The moment the seeker says, “I must improve,” a hierarchy is born. The one who seeks improvement implicitly positions themselves above their previous state, and often above others. To desire purification already assumes impurity. To desire awakening already assumes superiority. This is the ego slipping in through the back door while we believe we’ve escorted it out through the front. There is almost a tragic sweetness to this, because even the most earnest longing for truth becomes alloyed with self-advancement the moment one claims to be on a “path.”
Spiritual arrogance is not a deviation from the journey; it is the shadow cast by the journey itself. The one who meditates, the one who fasts, the one who contemplates, the one who retreats from the world, their very practices risk becoming badges stitched into the fabric of identity. It is astonishing how quickly devotion can become performance, how subtly humility can become pride in its own softness, how quietly comparison infiltrates even the holiest aspirations. The ego does not always scream, sometimes it whispers in the background of everyactivity. It whispers precisely in those moments when we believe we are beyond it.
The ego is a concept not a real thing. It’s a useful concept but still a concept. It cannot be measured, touched, seen, or viewed.
Hopefully someone will invent a gizmo to assist us.
this is wrong on so many levels. first: in the mahayana (eg. zen) you don't negate the self or ego; you just find it to be empty and very subtle. and this is the paradox: it's like it's there, but then it isn't. second: why do you quote so many western writers? it's not that i think that enlightenment is a cultural thing: but there must be so many beautifull koans to quote. third: you can't get rid of your ego. you can just renounce samsara, develop bodhicitta, and discover shunyata. that's it! 😂
Hello there, you share great posts friend, I wanted to introduce myself, I’ve not been on Substack long!
Here is my latest article, it’s one I think you may enjoy:
https://open.substack.com/pub/jordannuttall/p/an-introduction-to-alchemy?r=4f55i2&utm_medium=ios
I think
Therefore I Am
Yet, I Know
Subscribe @Gnosis Infinita
I've worked with many great spiritual masters. I have been doing the inner work for decades and there is no end. As mere mortals we will never get to a place of enlightenment. The more work we do the more humble we should become. Humility is an incredible surrender of sorts as we go down the spiritual path.
One can always expose themselves as a newbie on the path to enlightenment when they begin by stating they’ve killed their ego…
I believe it to be an important (and recurring) part of the process
Every damn day… but one could never fully kill a part of who they are.
In the Law of One framework, Ego represents the Service to Self polarity, a lens of viewing life and responding to it from separation. Instead of focusing on 'dissolving' what cannot be dissolved because it is the operating program we as humans operate from by default, we can choose to respond from Unity.
Perhaps you will find my experience of Ego interesting https://openupheart.substack.com/p/the-first-time-i-met-spiritual-ego?r=77fbg1
thanks for this interesting post - I’m writing on similar themes on my substack (asifmajidphd.substack.com). feel free to subscribe if it resonates!