To exert an effort of any kind, one must be there, is it not? That is, “I” must exist, first and foremost, inorder to be able to make an effort of any kind, or experience ego, or, the absence of it. So, when one asks, “how does meditation kill the ego?”, how does one relate to the notion of ego, in one’s consciousness? Is it something, other than what you are as the self? The self being the higher consciousness, or God, or whatever. Or, is the self itself, the ego?
If one says, the self is different from the ego, the self is the absolute consciousness or God, etc, and one becomes that, once the ego is killed, then, what is stopping God, who is all perfect, the absolute consciousness, from killing the ego in a second, if it were so, that such a state exists as the underlying substratum in one’s consciousness? Sir, can Truth ever have anything to do with the False? If you wish to kill ego, you surely think that there is something higher, which is the real, which is what you really are? And, in that thought, it the “YOU”, the “I”, that is striving to become something else, clothed in a different name, as Paramatman, Absolute Consciousness etc, is it not? For as long as there is the striving, the effort, the “I”, continues to thrive, it derives its continuity, in the very effort, does it not? That is, “I”, have to be there to meditate to kill the ego, is it not? While you are there, how can you kill it?, the ego doesn’t kill itself, it looks for ways of further deception to make believe, that now there is no ego, whatsoever. So, while there is a belief, an experience, a notion, a concept, an idea, there is a believer, an experiencer, a thinker, a judge, an analyser, that continues to exist. In other words, they are all one and, they are none other than, “YOU”, the “I”, ego, disguised, as an experiencer, a believer, a thinker, a judge, an analyser etc.
If you say, on the otherhand, the self and the ego, are one, how does one go about killing the ego? You cannot go about it surely, in anyway, as anything you do, will only further strengthen “you”. So what is one to do, sir? If one says, that they know that the ego and the self, are one and the same, in that knowing, there is an entirely different kind of inner revolution, is it not? To draw a parallel with a common metaphor, when one sees for oneself that the rope was always a rope and that it was mistaken for a snake, the illusion ceases on its own, provided one actually sees it physically for oneself. If one thought of it as a mere metaphor, in one’s mind, without actually seeing the rope for oneself physically, then, its quite possible that one might think that the rope was always the rope, that it was mistaken for the snake, therefore, the snake was always the rope. Do you get this? Does one see how easy it is for the mind to yet again distort what is, to what it might be? The rope was just the rope, the snake never existed, not that therefore, the snake was always the rope! To think the snake was always the rope is the same as saying, the snake existed except that it’s original form was that of rope, is it not? Does one see the absurdity of interpretation and belief, without actually knowing for oneself, knowing it as a fact, and not merely as knowledge, based on hearsay, as to what is truth, and, what is illusion. One can only find out for oneself, but how is one to do it, sir, without making an effort?
To face the fact of something, one must have no distortion whatsoever about it, is it not? That is, no preconceived ideas, beliefs, faith, opinions, judgments, prejudices, conditoning, etc. It is only in the absence of these can one come face to face with the fact of something. And when you face the fact of the absurdity of all that that makes up one’s ego, when you face it for yourself, what happens? One can only know when one finds out for oneself. In that, there is great inner revolution, great disturbance of all that is, because the very foundation of “YOU”, the “I”, is shaken to its core, it is threatened, when it comes face to face with the fact that it has no footing. It blasts away from its very core then. But, surely, it must also bring with it a radical transformation in oneself, that is instant, not over a period of time, but instant, is it not? And what is instant, is not of time, and what is not of time, can never be in the grasp of that which is in time, that is “YOU”, the “I”, which always seeks to strive, to make effort, to bring about a change over a period of time, while gaining its strength and continuity in that very striving, in that every effort, while remaining in conflict in that time.