The ego is perhaps one of the most misunderstood concepts in spiritual and psychological circles. This has often led to attacks on the spiritual definition and practice (since most seek to bypass or dissolve the ego) or even to spiritual seekers hating and vilifying the ego in themselves – and it’s just a concept!
This article is an attempt to clear up one of the common misunderstandings – based on the difference between the spiritual and psychological definitions. Yes, they are different, and most of the criticisms I see come from the mix-up between the two.
Before I begin, please understand that this is based on my experiences and research. There might be subtle misunderstandings, although I’ve taken every effort to make them as accurate as possible. I used to love writing about the ego but I’ve stopped simply because of these possible misunderstandings (which only an enlightened person can write without, I guess).
In psychology, when someone discusses the ego, most people immediately think of Freud’s theories. Freud’s ego is part of a structure that includes the id and the super-ego. What follows is an extremely simplified introduction (so please don’t base your essays on this 
).
The id is often seen as a new-born baby. It is based on instinct, impulse, and the pleasure-pain principle. This means it will simply do what feels good and avoid what is painful, very often without caring about morals or other people. It is possible that when we do “something in the heat of the moment”, the id has overcome our inhibitions. What if some criminals, like certain megalomaniacs and serial killers, are highly id-driven people with very weak limitations – babies with adult resources?
And what are these limitations? They come as the ego and the super-ego. The ego restricts the id based on physical reality and physical survival. The super-ego, also restricts the id, but from a sense of right and wrong, and of concern for what others will think of us (social survival).
For example, imagine me walking down the street. I suddenly feel hungry and the first thing I see is another man eating a burger. Pure id would be to grab the food and eat it. But my ego would stop me based on reality and physical safety. What if that man attacks me? What if he has diseases in his saliva?
The super-ego would also step in, although for different reasons. It is wrong to take something without asking, or giving something in return. I might hurt the man’s feelings. Or he might think I am an asshole, and I can’t have that now, can I?
The ego mediates between the basic drive and all the different limitations, and ultimately makes me go and buy a burger of my own.
Most criticisms against spiritual work are based on the wrong definition. Most spiritual seekers will define ego work as undoing the ego, bypassing it, removing it, not believing in it anymore, or something similar. That is fine if we are discussing the spiritual definition, but critics think they are talking about the psychological definition.
Understandably, they then think we would all become giant babies, completely at the mercy of the id. Spiritual work, to them, is a cleverly disguised form of destruction and retardation.
(Strangely, I have not come across a critic who thinks we will turn into rule-bound machines, driven only by the super-ego. Maybe that’s not as scary?)
Another interpretation of the word “ego” is our self-image, or sometimes a set of survival and protection skills. This might actually be closer to the spiritual definition. Saying someone has a weak ego can mean that they have low self-esteem, and therefore cannot stand up for themselves, or have not learnt how to. The other end of this spectrum is the arrogant, selfish individual, who is also known as having a “big ego”.
This is another common criticism. Many people already suffer from a lack of boundaries. They cannot take care of themselves, or they cannot tell an abusive person to back off, for example. This stems from a poor self-image and a lack of ‘grit’. Are you telling these people they have to remove the ego even more?
Well, rest assured because spiritual seekers are talking about something different.
So what is the spiritual definition of the ego? To be honest, I don’t know. All I can give is my current understanding (other seekers will have other definitions, and I invite you to share in the comments). To me, the spiritual ego is a collection of thoughts, beliefs, and stories. These thoughts are given special significance because they are seen as “mine”. Without this attachment, thoughts are just thoughts, and they don’t have much power over our lives.
‘Sailor’ Bob Adamson, a student of Nisargadatta Maharaj, describes it beautifully – Thinking about fire doesn’t burn your brain, saying the word fire doesn’t burn your tongue. The word ‘fire’ is not fire. The thought ‘fire’ is not fire.
What does that mean? If someone was to walk up to me and tell me “Albert, you are a complete loser and a piece of s%!^.” Why do I get angry? What has been insulted? The thought, “Albert”? The word, “Albert”? They are not me, just like the thinking and talking about fire doesn’t burn you.
What is the mystical quality I have given this thought, that it hurts me so? This thought is believed to represent “me”, and is now worth being angry and upset over. Everything that is now imbued with this quality of “me” or “mine” now has the same power.
Someone questions “my” social status, “my” character, “my” religious beliefs, the quality of “my” work, “my” car, “my” lover, or whatever, and I hurt. I suffer. I cry. I seek revenge.
Is this not true? If we look closely at much of our suffering – not physical illness or injury, of course – this basic attachment and (mis)identification is the root cause. Think about the last time you were angry or sad, and trace it down to your thoughts. What was your last argument about?
Was it really because the dishes were left unwashed, for instance, or was it because “your” wishes were not obeyed? Was it really because you lost half an hour of sleep, or was it because he didn’t respect “your” right for a quiet night?
Even thoughts and stories that are inherently painful are clung to. The stories of “how she did me wrong”, or “how he betrayed me”, even though you haven’t seen that person for years, still goes strong in most of us. The mental position of “victim” or “martyr” can be amongst the hardest to drop, as we once discussed in Why Do We Cling To Unhappiness?
In my experience, this is the benefit of spiritual work. By recognising when we have been caught up in a false collection of thoughts and mental positions, and choosing to gently let go of our attachment, we begin to experience more and more inner freedom.
Further Reading on the Spiritual Ego: What Your Ego Is
I just realised that I’m out of guest posts! Anyone want to contribute? Here are some guidelines.
A blog shout-out to Dan Schawbel, who runs one of the top blogs on personal branding. You can find it at Personal Branding Blog, and his personal website at DanSchawbel.com.
The next link love goes out to Porsidan, written by Jay Schryer. I love his quote “I don’t have any answers. But sometimes, I ask the right questions…” A recent post: Finding My Passion.
UrbanMonk.Net provides comprehensive articles for your personal development - modern life, entwined with ancient spirituality.
Get the latest posts free via Email or RSS. |
Get The Latest Articles Free By Email: |
 |
|
54 Comments
Subscribe to the Comments
Thank you for thelink love, Albert! Your blog is truly one of the most inspirational and useful websites out there, and I am honored that you stopped by to visit me!
I think part of what you are describing is mindfulness which is useful in reining in ego.
It also helps to see ego as something bigger than yourself. You can do this if you look at the inter-connection between all things. For instance, when you eat a piece of bread, think about how many people were involved in producing the bread. There is the grocer, baker, farmer, and so on.
I particularly liked the comment about people not usually considering how scary the superego can be. I personally see the superego as the scariest aspect of the psyche, because (at least I see it) it’s the part that tells us we aren’t “supposed” to have certain feelings and thoughts. It has us repress our anger, joy, sadness, and so on in the name of being a good little boy or girl, long after the circumstances where we may have needed that repression are gone. If it had its way, it would keep us scared little children for the rest of our lives.
@ Jay: Now you’re making me blush.
@ Roger: That’s a very cool perspective, I’ll have to try it out.
@ Chris: Thanks buddy! Yeah, many psychs call the super-ego an introjected parent. Interesting when you think about it.
This was very well written, Albert. You made difficult concepts easy to understand, and that is a sign of genius!
I like the point that thinking of ‘fire’ does not make me fire. Yet we let the words of others and even ourselves affect our self-view. Interesting perspective. Great post!
“The mind is incessantly looking for not only food for thought; it is looking for food for its identity, its sense of self. This is how the ego comes into existence and continuously re-creates itself.” Stillness Speaks by Eckhart Tolle
The super-ego is not as scary because it is internalised authority (starting with early carers) – separating from these is what we often find scary.
I think the spiritual definition of the ego amounts to greed or attachment (no surprise then that it is seen as bad).
Thanks for this clarification. I think you are right, distinguishing these definitions gets rid of much confusion and wasted words and time.
@ Daphne: You’re always so supportive, thanks
@ Johnathan: Good to have you here. That’s a great quote!
@ Evan: Thanks as well! I actually meant that super-ego line as a subtle poke towards some of the critics, hehe. The majority of the criticisms I see are just knee-jerk reactions, mostly born of spite, rather than a genuine or informed opinion.
I used to write a lot about the Ego too. I tried to make war against the ego.
But really, only the ego even thinks about the ego. Only the ego cares. It’s like the old Zen proverb about the enlightened man describing enlightenment by carrying a sack and dropping it.
When there is the basic knowledge that there is no real separation, then the perception of separation is not a big deal. You shrug and carry that sack.
Good Post!
Indeed! It seems real freedom entails a deconstruction of the ego. Freud conceptualized it as a “package of beliefs,” which includes the ‘world’ and ‘others,’ that makes up the belief in a “you.”
The spiritual ego is “you” and since this is nothing more than a conceptual package, it appears the less concepts in that package, the better.
However, Many non-dual spiritual paths seek to annihilate or completely transcend that ‘package of beliefs’ that make up “you.”
The problem is that the “you,” that only exists as a concept, is seeking to end itself. Ha!
Rather, an impossibility, wouldn’t you agree? However, transformation is possible and once we stop trying to end our ’self’ through “enlightenment” we just might transform the ’self’ for the better. Yet, here’s the rub, you can’t transform your ’self’ by yourself. Transformation happens only through another, so give up your solitary seeking and join with the world.
Great discussion!
Thanks,
mikeS
Something you very helpfully clear up here is that arguments unfold before even the most elementary agreement of what the term in question MEANS, e.g. “ego.” You can’t have any kind of productive discussion when everyone assumes they’re starting from the same presuppositions and they’re NOT.
@ Matthew and Mike: Thank you both for your contributions! I can’t add anything to it besides a big thank you.
You know I’ve been swarmed by spammers and comments by people named “cheap air jordans” with text like “Nice post, thank you.” A couple days ago I was considering turning off comments altogether, but comments like all the ones on this post reminded me of why I keep it on in the first place.
@ CarolynB: Thanks, and good to have you here as usual! Most of the critics I see (mostly on online discussion forums) have a knee-jerk reaction to discussions of spiritual ego, with a simple “Yea, so all those psychologists are wrong, huh?” They usually don’t stay around long enough for the explanation.
Hey Albert . Thought provoking post. I’m in a predicament with this ego business. I always thought I had the ego concept under control. Very few things hurt me. But then, I came across a new ego. The spiritual ego. I would get hurt if people attached my knowledge or spirituality. Technically it shouldn’t matter. My attachment to the ‘i’ was generating the hurt. I had a new identity problem. What does one do , when the very spiritual knowledge one thrives on and is so committed to is threatened by others. Is this also the ego.? Am I making sense?
Hey Uzma – sounds like you got it just right. You’re just moving the attachment to something else. The healing process is the same.
How to heal the spiritual ego? I feel its a trap . I keep finding the damn ‘i’ everywhere I go?
What to say ” I let go of my need for spiritual approval?” . What say Doc. Is that correct?
Well what techniques, if any, have you been using for the non-spiritual ego? For me, it was just awareness. And its the same thing regardless of what I’ve been attached to, spiritual or material.
http://www.urbanmonk.net/59/wh.....onal-love/
I use the questions of the Sedona Method. Questions from Lousie Hay’s You can Heal your life.
Or I just sit with the feelings , write, journal and see their source and let it go. Also practise loving the emotion or feeling. Or I just breathe into it. Maybe I will email you , of you don’t mind. Let me know. As always, thanks a lot of sharing your words and helping.
Peace be upon you.
Hey Uzma, it’s exactly the same thing then, apply it in exactly the same way. It’s really no different.
You know too many people have mentioned Louise Hay to me in one week. I’m gonna go buy her book
Thanks for the insightful article. I have been building more awareness to matters on the ego lately. I have been feeling as if I have been “wrongly accused” by a friend and have chosen to keep silent and not engaged. I am not sure if my lack of response is the best “solution” and if it means letting go of attachment. However, I choose to remain silent until I have more clarity on the words to use. My thoughts are that if I should react and respond emotionally, I am merely feeding my ego.
Would you have any advice for me? Should I even bother to “defend” myself?
You should buy the Louise Hay book. Having read Eckhart Tolle and Deepak Chopra etc in the past, I found her book the nicest. For one, apparently its 20 years old, hence one of the first books in the ’self help’ genre. Also , she puts together everything, all the others say, in a beautiful simple manner. She is the pioneer. Though you won’t find any non dual teaching , atleadt explicitly. But as a student of psychology, please read it and review here.
Hi Albert,
This is my first time visiting your site and I love it. You have some very interesting articles.
As for the ego, I used to struggle with it a lot but then I came to realize that the best way to make peace with the ego is to make peace with oneself. Sounds easy but it is very hard. I think why some people have huge ego’s is because there is an element of being insecure.
A truly secure person will want to see others happy and content. I think we need to accept who we are and see the beauty in who we are. I think once that is done, there comes inner peace and the ego will lose most of its power.
I used to be a Type A years ago and now I am so different, no one believes me when I tell them how I used to be like. So a person can come to terms with their ego’s and find that inner peace.
Hi again,
I wanted to add one more comment, even though a person may come to terms with the ego, the ego may still try to make an appearance every now and then. But when you know that the ego is coming from insecurity…you can see the ego for what it is and not get so worked up.
I don’t the ego will ever be totally gone but a person can come to understand how it works and not get sucked in!
@ Evelyn: Thanks! That is actually kind of tricky. I think mindfulness is the key here, and your internal state is more important than what you actually choose to do.
For example, I think you are doing the right thing. You can defend yourself either from a state of “defensiveness” or from a state of clarity, like you said. The words can be exactly the same but your internal state makes a world of difference. Even the nicest more mature words from a negative mental state can have bad results, for both parties.
If the matter is not urgent, I would say continue to do some of your favourite meditations on the issue until you feel clear internally. Then let your actions flow from that. You might choose to talk it over with her, or you might find that it will not mean anything to you, and you can let the matter slide.
If the matter is big or more urgent, it can actually do us good to forget this whole ego business and state our position respectfully without attacking or blaming the other person. You can simply tell her “I feel slighted and hurt because you have misunderstood me over …” and avoid getting into a long drawn out argument. Sometimes, choosing to remain silent can be egotistical as well – a hidden thought “I am more spiritually evolved than you are”, “I have more dignity than you do”, etc. We would have to rely on our own awareness to see which one this is.
I’m actually quite honoured that you would ask me this question by the way. I love and look up to your work.
@ Uzma: I just did, and have browsed through a few chapters. You’re right, the material she covers has been seen in other books (but then again she came first heh!) but she really puts it together in a way few others can.
@ Nadia: Thank you for that story (and love your blog too!). I think your story perfectly illustrates the point – many people “struggle” with the ego,only to find that it is just more self-violence. I see too many people going out there and making war on an illusion. Making peace with the world, or with oneself, is the far better way. The illusion relaxes its grip, or we relax our grip on this concept.
Hello Albert,
The term ego always fascinates me to contemplate on it, and few times I tried to write on it, specially on spiritual ego.
I just like put the complimentary remark on spiritual ego. I recently bewildered by the many disguised form of the EGO in sublte FORMs; as a social role, humbleness, sacrifice, spiritual thoughts/emotion, beside more concrete/understandable form.
I could never identify it (under these forms) until I catched the glimpses inner space/silence.
You have put great effort in this article in explaining the comprensive acpects of ego, and is very useful indeed. I can only add my warm regards to it.
Hey TJW! Thank you so much, I really appreciate your comment, and I enjoy your blog too!
How to heal the spiritual ego?
Hey Dizi, I wouldn’t call it healing, but this article should help:
http://www.urbanmonk.net/59/wh.....onal-love/
To be human is precisely to have that extra circuit of consciousness which enables us to know that we know, and thus to take an attitude towards all that we experience. The mistake which we have made – and this, if anything, is the fall of man – is to suppose that that extra circuit, that ability to take an attitude toward the rest of life as a whole, is the same as actually standing aside and being separate from what we see. We seem to feel that the thing which knows that it knows is ones essential self, that – in other words – our personal identity is entirely on the side of the commentator.
-Alan Watts
Hey JJP! Another fantastic quote. I love his explanation of the “I” in The Book on the Taboo (of something something, I forgot the full title). Is this from that book? It’s been a while since I cracked it open.
Can i comment still?
Woops! Sorry about that shorty. This is an interesting post. I’ve been thinking about the ego and wondering if misunderstood release of the “ego” creates better workers in a Marxist sense? This is something that has only occurred to me recently, though I personally tend to naturally work towards the undestanding that we are not “fixed”/permanent things.
Another question I had, was in my experience living in a western society while embracing ideas like compassion and understanding and forgiveness, how does one respond to individuals that see this as an opportunity to “take advantage” of them? –I had a sister and bf, begin pursuing each other before my relationship with the bf was resolved and I’m unsure of how i should have handled the situation, or how to resolve my feelings of deep betrayal. I am otherwise a very forgiving person, but the fact that she (my sister) still does not acknowledge how inappropriate her choices were leaves me confused as to where to go from here. I am presently still feeling wounded, though I love them both very much and after a month, they decided not to pursue anything “at this time.”
Without ego, is there inappropriate and appropriate? and if so, how do we respond to people who have seen your use of compassion as an invitation to continue inappropriate behavior?
Hi Katie,
These are deep and important questions I think. I’m sure I don’t have an answer.
My approach is that we are social-individuals rather than isolated individuals; and, life comes with values attached – rather than being neutral “stuff” which we just decide how to regard.
These are big questions and I love to see how others respond.
Hey Katie, no problem
I’m not sure I understand the first paragraph – could you elaborate more? My knowledge of Marx is very basic,unfortunately.
That is a very good question, and can be quite complex. In essence, I believe in setting healthy, firm, and fair boundaries until you don’t need them anymore. If I can point you towards a couple of series I have written (there is too much for me to summarise into the comments):
Compassion:
http://www.urbanmonk.net/welcome/#compassion
Boundaries:
http://www.urbanmonk.net/welcome/#boundaries
Marxism is more concerned with the collective ego (which is a jungian term). When the collective ego experiences extreme oppression, it tends to engage in ‘learned helplessness’ and internalizes the views of the oppressor. The oppressed worker feels there is no way out and merely sinks deeper into the collective oppression.
You cannot really transcend the ego since the ego is ’self’ (Buddha -self is suffering) and if transcended, who or what would interpret the transcendence?
However, the ego can learn to perceive or interpret experiences from a separate or unified frame of reference or way of relating to the world.
From a unified perspective there is the diminished experience of suffering since the ego is not as threatened by what others do (as in betrayal).
However, from a separate frame of reference the ego must always be vigilant and will actually seek out threats to itself and this results in an increase of suffering.
Just some ideas. hope it’s helpful. If not, sorry….
mikeS
Thanks for the responses.
@ mikeS with the question about Marxism (this is for clarification of my understanding of your response)…Taking things outside of Marxism, if the working class develop a “diminished experience of suffering” wouldn’t this make them more productive workers for corrupt leaders?
Or would the workers’ non-attachment make them less fearful, giving the corrupt less handholds by which to manipulate them?
@ Albert, thanks for the response. That is the only place I have reached so far, but, since I am not as far along the road to limitless forgiveness as i would like to be as of yet, i can’t tell if i still need the safety-distance. She acts as if she is apologetic, but our conversations say she is angry that i felt hurt (seemingly not a good sign).
I see a very important, beautiful purpose in this whole experience though, that i am extremely grateful for. However, i’d like to be able to forgive my sister and heal our relationship, when it is possible.
I’m looking forward to reading those articles tomorrow morning.
@ Evan
Thanks. I mean it.
Katie,
I would imagine that a collective experience of diminished suffering would result in less control.
If I suffer little through your control of me, how can your actions be defined as controlling (by me)?
It seems that there are two distinct levels of existence or ‘reality,’ inside and outside the mind and the ego-self, (individual and collective), spends entirely too much time, over the centuries, attempting to control the outside.
Suffering is an inside condition based on an outside egoic evaluation. Corrupt leaders take advantage of this dynamic, but this will always require that the collective remain ignorant of their own propensity for evaluative suffering.
But that’s just my take on things, for what it’s worth.
Thanks,
mikeS
The best definition of ego I’ve heard is “the ego is what tells you that this mind-body is me and every thing else is not me”
Mike that is an awesome definition, thanks.
Thanks Mike! That is a good definition.
Hi Albert
Great overview. The ego is a cunning thing. Confusing concepts of it gives it more opportunities to hide itself.
Are familiar with the “Triune brain”? In many ways, Freud’s 3 layer ego would correspond to the 3 biological brains – instinctual, animalian and higher.
The reason the ego is so tricky to step out of is that it’s a concept. So all concepts of the ego are just ego. (laughs) We thus have to transcend it to get out of it. You can’t use mind to escape.
It’s useful to think of ego as the idea of being separate or other. When we loose our sense of connection with the One, the result is fear and a sense of separation. A construct then develops to help control and make safe the world.
Ego in general is a natural part of the process of growing up, of separating from mother. But when we don’t find a new connection to source internally, the construct we now seek to disassemble results.
It’s useful to see the construct in 3 layers. The surface part is the concepts and beliefs we have about ourselves, mind. These seek confirmation and reinforcement and judge other as wrong.
Fueling those concepts are the emotions. The feelings of inadequacy, anger, incompleteness, and others of what might be called “negative” emotions.
These are in turn driven by a gut level fear that arises in the sense of separation. This is the core identity or sense of separate person.
For most people, much of this is subconscious. As we do the work, the layers peel back and become exposed. Once aware, we can work on them. We can release them.
The first 2 layers are before and after awakening. It is not usually until the deeper layers of the heart open, under the crust of those emotions, that the identity can even be seen.
The identity is the core thing that creates the sense of an “inside” and an “outside”. When that falls away, the way is paved for Oneness or unity. Where everything falls into the One.
This is why awakening is not full enlightenment. It is not the goal. It is a process.
That may help some people understand their experience.
Hey Davidya, thank you for that. That is a brilliant comment. I’ve been finding these layers to be very true in my own experience – the concepts and the emotions that underlie them. The identity, the sense of separation is what is left.
(The Sedona Method also includes the wants, which are under the emotions. The deepest want are the opposing forces of the wanting separation and wanting oneness. )
Hi Albert
Interesting re wants. I talk about Need, subtle should and subtle expectations. Subtle as they don’t have ‘thought forms’ the same way as more surface values have. Those are aspects of what I refer to here as Identity, basically the lower chakras. Haven’t written this up fully yet on my blog. Coming soon….
Hey mate! I look forward to reading more on your thoughts. I’ve never heard of how the deeper stuff does not have thought forms, although it would make sense in my experience – more primordial and overwhelming, they felt to me. Can’t wait for your article on it.
Hi Albert
You may enjoy the new post – it’s actually a 4 parter. The deeper stuff we chatted about above is more in the 3rd part, although you may find the stuff before that useful to understand how I frame it.
http://in2deep.wordpress.com/2.....ry-part-1/
Hey!
I’ve been reading your blog for a while, it’s cleared up a lot of things, and has once again!
I’m a reader of Nathaniel Branden books with the Ego as self and self esteem and its good to know they’re not the same thing:P
Self Esteem is your reputation with yourself. How you use your mind for good. I ditched Branden for a while and went on to Tolle I got really pissed off and ended up hurling A New Earth accross the room:P
Tolle says that I’m not my body or my mind and anything I do doesn’t matter, how I’m not my mind and what my mind thinks of me doesn’t matter.
I learned from Branden that what your mind thniks of you does matter, not the random thinking, but the true reputation with it.
Integrity, responsibility, conciousness, acceptance etc.
Tolle puts down the mind an awful lot.
Am I misreading it would you know?
Hey Simon! Thanks for the comment. You raise a very interesting question and I’ll give my opinion (not the Truth
)
I don’t think Tolle actually puts down the mind. I think he’s saying it’s a tool that we’ve forgotten is a tool, if that makes sense. The slave has taken over the master. If you read it from that angle, there actually isn’t any conflict between Branden and Tolle.
Branden is saying if your rep with your mind is good, then you will have a more effective and pleasurable life. Which is true. But we still mistake the slave for the master. Tolle is operating on a whole different level.
On the other hand, their main message seems to be the same – Be aware of your programs and conditioning.
Thank you! That has cleared a lot of things up.
It was like sometimes he was putting down the use of the mind. It can be difficult withou becoming thought.
I got a good revelation just this morning, we are not the body or the mind.
We are the life force within the body!
Does the mind keep the body alive, the heart and the lungs? Keeps it alive, what keeps them alive? Chemicals in the mind, what causes them to work at all?
Life! Us! The Lifeforce within the body.
The awareness of the thoughts, experiencer of the emotions, Existance.
I should probably get my own blog:P
Hehe! Glad I helped
Do you think we are the lifeforce, or is that still attaching an identity to something, in the way that we used to attach (falsely) our identity to the mind and the body? Just asking 
Naw,just the word I used to describe it, seemed the most apt!
I will not identify myself with the letters I type on the screen. Wow I’m so bendy:P
Ruined my joke, I meant to say Now…
Hehe! That’s fine!
Trackbacks / Pingbacks
show trackbacks