No, it does not. 'You' can never be ego. Ego is a framework of thought believed to represent one's self. It's not a true you, or me, or I. It is not a living being. At best it is a structured identification or a conceptual lens. It is a disservice to refer to it like it was real just to point out that it's not. Ego does not qualify as a 'you'. It is a point of view born of the physical human environment and experience. When we speak to another in the context of awakening, it serves best to speak to the being, the awareness, to that which perceives through the ego identification, and to that that is capable of perceiving beyond it. Why speak to a mind structure when you know there is a essential being present.karmarider wrote:You = ego
If a mannequin had a built in speaker and microphone, and someone behind the curtain were speaking to you through it, would you talk to the appearance made of plastic, or to the actual live being who addressed you? Would you constantly tell the mannequin it wasn't real? Or would you tell the speaker that you knew he wasn't the form he spoke through? The reality is the mannequin and the ego both do exist. They just don't exist in the way as does a live being that perceives through them. They exist as shells, or tools, or vehicles through which conscious being may experience life in physical terms. Okay, experiencing life through the mannequin may be a bit much, but it's true for the ego and body.
When the clearer members of this forum, and the Tolle's of the world, speak to those interested in the nature of awakening, they speak not to an ego, but to the being that exists beyond the ego structure. It's why so many have responded to Tolle's pointing. He stirs their essential nature to see beyond the egoic identification. Tolle does not deny the existence of you. He merely points out that it's not what you 'think' it is.