[dhg]

I've been giving this subject some thought lately, and while far from yet being well-versed, I still have to share some thoughts I have after reading the article and the posts in this thread.

I can't help feeling that much of the confusion stems from not understanding what exactly it is we're supposed to fight or not fight. That is: whether to agree or disagree with the concept of fighting ego, lies in the definition and understanding of the concept ego.

As it seems to me, ego can be viewed as either the product of social conditioning, or as the pure idea of awareness of our individuality. If you see ego as the former, of course a natural reaction is to fight it. And I see no problem here. Social conditioning is hindering and while you probably have to understand it, you don't need it.

But, if you instead view ego as the awareness of our individuality and our place in the bigger machinery, there is no need to fight it. If you fight this, you fight your very own existence as you know it. Just as a cell in the human body cannot survive without support from the whole organism, you cannot cut yourself loose from your individual needs. I think few of us would disagree that physical requirements such as food and water really are essential. In analogy to this, I think that a sense of individuality is required to exist in this world, or at least an awareness of it.

I see it this way: whatever consciousness is, we've been given our physical body and our sense of individuality as a vehicle to experience and express it. And in that sense, we cannot fight ego without also ending up fighting this existence.

So what I'm trying to say is this: if we see ego as social conditioning, we may very well fight it (and I personally think that we should), but if we see it as awareness of our individuality, we cannot fight it without also fighting our very own existence.

As I said. This is all quite new to me. What are your thoughts on this?