Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
What do you define as your ego?
anataman
Who needs a title?Where am I? Veteran
Just interested in your views of this 'thing'
1
Comments
Hmmm.... Good question.
I tend to differentiate between 'Ego' and 'ego'... the former being an insidious, pervasive, creeping burden which obscures our real self with shields of Pride, self-aggrandisement and selfish arrogance...
On the other hand , my 'ego' is another word for what others (who may or may not be Buddhist) perceive of me, depending on what projection I use.
It changes, and I must admit that; but I think it does for everyone.
We are not the same 'person' at work, for example, that we are at leisure... we have a specific comportment, attitude, way of projecting ourselves in order to be professional...
The French have a word for it:
Pride can be translated as 'Fierté' which is a justifiable personal pleasure taken in achieving something through diligence, hard work and dedication, for example.
'Orgueil', is more boastful, pompous and self-absorbed.
I used to be an example of the latter, in my youth.
I am hoping that has been fairly well erased, although doubtless, it still tries to surface, without me being aware of it....
Kia Ora,
I've come to see it this way...
One is simply ones experience and ones ego is the abstraction from these experiences-Ones ego should be viewed as a convenient analytic device!
I'm off to work......
Metta Shoshin
)
Have a pleasant day/evening/night at work...
metta
Ego- sense of self. I try and keep it simple, neutral now where as in the past its had a negative connotation- as in something I shouldn't have. Some "spiritual" teachers Ive read along the way have also shed a negative light on it which didn't help me much. Bob
Ego could be our futile attempt to immortalize successive shreds of impermanence which we come to identify as an entity which for the sake of convention we call "me."
ooh-er.... @dharmamom, that's a deep one!
Thank you @federica ; my point is this and it may be mute or cute, but ego is an essential aspect of you - not sure I can say anymore, but to be me is as much as to be you, and this is a kind definition...
The thing that says "I want, I don't want (insert whatever here)!"
The thing that likes to argue about stuff with other people!
Off-topic comments removed, Further off-topic comments will suffer a similar fate.
I guess right now I'd say my ego seems to be what attaches labels and stories to the world my senses perceive. It attempts to make sense of those things for me in order to compare and contrast my experience with everyone else to ensure that it (the ego) is still ok and in tact.
@anataman.
I experience my ego as the habituated inertial energy that promotes the separation of self and others.
That which manipulates my sense data to establish and maintain the dream that the Buddha admonished us to awaken from.
That which is the continuity of what instigated my birth and the karmic inheritance that is my responsibility to bring to some resolution.
The ego is what my society and environment has told me I am. It is me taking ownership of everything that I consider to be voluntary when in fact they are not. Eg I shouldn't think that! When I had no control over the thought
If I was born in a jungle and my friends were a bear and a panther would I still have the same ego? I would say no.
Perhaps not but I'd say an ego none the less. I can't imagine how I or anyone could function without one. Personally, for me , defining ego as simply a sense of self is helpful, less negitive. Its taken a while to make friends with my sense of self I have no beef with my ego. lol!Bob
Ego is basically just a fancier word for self, and I believe is a neutral word. Mindfulness actually helps understand the self, and then let go, but not as in without care.
It depends, b/c it's function changes with circumstance (internal and external)
Yet . . . perhaps if I meditated/went on retreats for another ten years it would be different . . . my 'ego' is most definitely a THING, however relative.
I have one, and I'm not convinced it's presence is entirely a bad thing.
To me, the ego is the primary interface that negotiates between what is within, and what is with-out. Even that distinction (within and without) are relative in the great scheme of things, but being honest, that is how my perception goes right now.
In my heart of hearts, I know this 'ego' is a locus of gravity, and what is sucked into it or thrown back out is 'not me', so managing this 'ego's' relative importance is part of my ongoing practice.
I've known people who don't have a functional ego due to mental illness, usually some form of psychotic disorder or personality disorder. Their lack of this ultimately relative THING is bad news for them and their lives.
BTW, I don't have a source for this, maybe someone else does . . . it may be Bhante Bikkhu, as he's done a ton of translation. Anyway, the earlier translators chose the word 'ego' not knowing what the evolution of that word would be a hundred years later. There is no direct word for ego in Pali or whatever language it was all written in. "Ego" was coined back in Sigmund Freud's day, it was not in common use before that, and over the hundred years since 'ego' became a common term, it has undergone quite a lot of subtle shifts in meaning. That is NOT to mention how differently you and I and the next guy unpack the word 'ego'.
There is something there, for sure, a real live thing called 'ego'. It is just a word, and language creates things out of nothing.
me
Ego is that little voice inside that cries "me, me" when, through our Buddhist practice, we're striving to broaden up to "us."
Kia Ora,
That which stops me from walking in front of a moving bus or that which can propel me to walk in front of a moving bus...
Metta Shoshin:)
Ego is the sandcastle on the beach, the glass that holds the water...
The part of us that takes umbrage, that feels hurt, that longs, that craves, that sets boundaries... but also that loves, that learns, that remembers, that carves a sense out of this nonsense and no-self.
Kia Ora,
What do you define as your ego?
Who wants to know ?
"I" couldn't resist it .
........
Metta Shoshin
I'm getting carried away with this 'ego' definition because it rakes a lot of existential muck about.
Coming to think of it, we have to feel compassion for us poor mental constructions of something like a person or an ego.
We surge up in this world, we don't know where we come from, we suffer a lot, and before we are even entitled to know what this was all about, we'll pass away, once more without knowing where we're going to.
We're like brackets in a continuum of infinity.
I think I once heard someone say samsara is nirvana and nirvana is samsara, whatever that means, but it does makes sense somewhat that the bigger picture could be something more useful than something depressing.
Some great answers here btw. Apologies if it rub some egos up the wrong way, lol.
I have spent a lot of time trying to be egoless because that was what I thought was supposed to be an achievement. I've bashed it, smashed it, dismissed it, avoided it, shook it, kicked it, talked to it, cuddled it, cursed and blamed it. However, it always comes back to serve me in a capacity that I can only respect.
So my response now is to let it be, whatever it is.
Now perhaps that's just my ego talking, but who cares?
For those with a philosophical-bent, when one is seeking to become egoless, think about what is seeking to become egoless. Then consider impermanence, and let it all just blow away.
Have a nice day! ... \ lol / ...
But the objective is not to rid ourselves of ego, at all...
Kia Ora@anataman,
Thank you...It was....
Metta Shoshin
...
...
Absolutely.
There is no point in trying to get rid of something which has only conventional existence to start with.
As the Bhikkhu says, from the time of its arrival in the west the aims of Buddhadharma were conflated with functions that are given undue prominence among Americans and Europeans who then created a problem.
One of my teachers described getting rid of ego as a solution to a non existent problem.
The reason that we act selfishly or with anger or overwhelming attraction or aversion is not due to some entity called ' the ego '.
They are series of powerful conditioned responses which are self reinforcing..
Thats the cycle we need to transcend by awareness of it.
Nicely put @Citta,
Unfortunately, I didn't realise I had a problem with ego until I was told I had one - the Western view of buddhism is by its very nature self-centred, and something must be held to account - and that can become a sticking point, an unnecessary distraction, a conditioned response.
So realising this is in itself a big step on the path of liberation.
Hang on I've just spotted something on the horizon, what is this liberation thing I've been getting hung up on? NEW THREAD ... \ lol / ...
Anyhow ego, "sense of self" isn't an issue per sa ,for me. The degree to which I am identified with it is.This causes suffering. Being aware that I'm caught up in a screen of liking,disliking,judging caused mostly from my past conditioning (my sense of self) is liberating . Through mindfulness can I add a "buffer" to the automaticity of my judging mind? Yes. Moment to moment I have observed it. Its simple yet not easy. It requires tending to, moment to moment best I can. ego - no problem-just something to look at. Bob
We discussed that one a lot recently, @namarupa. Maybe @federica could pin the threads for you.
In not so fancy words, it means that samsara and nirvana are shifts in perception, rather than different levels of reality.
You choose every moment on which side you stand by the positive or negative thoughts you feed your mind with.
In his book "Zen Therapy," David Brazier uses 'ego' and 'self' interchangeably:
"['Ego' and 'self'] refer to a constellation of concepts and images which a person holds deeply and tenaciously in mind as representing themselves. Even though a person is actually more like a river which flows continuously, we like to think of ourselves as fixed entities. We tend to believe that we only have one self or ego, but in practice, we have as many different concepts and images of ourselves as we have social contexts that we identify with."
He also relates 'self' and 'karma':
"Self generates karma and karma constitutes the self. They exist in a circular relationship and, in the last analysis, neither is real. There is no entity corresponding to the idea we have of self. Self is simply the karmic constellation which is manifesting. As we make more karma, we reinforce the delusion of self. When we stop making new karma or extinguish old karma, the sense of self weakens."
We might say it is that which projects on what it experiences, rather than resting in the Real Nature of Being. It is a question of skilfulness. The ego is noise. The Buddha Nature or dharmic ego (if I can use that term) leads us to peace, which may or may not mean silence. The monkey minded ego, being full of itself runs around the raft to the far shore, wondering which direction to express its 'wisdom'. The agitated monkey mind needs to have its game exposed but of course is distracted by samsara. In this sense it is the ego which understands. The true nature does not rely on understanding or processing.
My ego was my emotional mind that was built from all the negative things that have happened to me in my past, & all my worries about the future that i had at the time....I am 100% convinced about this, & would love a few opinions....If you can imagine that our mind is a muscle, & is divided in two..We have a logical neutral thinking mind, & an emotional mind, but they are combined as one mind..So our logical neutral thinking mind should be running the show, & looking at all the evidence of what's happening "before" it allows our emotional mind to create an emotion or feeling..So we start off in life with a logical neutral thinking mind, & then unwanted things start happening to us & people say unwanted things..We're told from a young age who we are, & we're never given a chance to find who we are ourselves..So even as an adult most still have an egoic emotional mind, & it's still being created by people other than our selves....The key to combating our ego at first, is to realize that our unwanted emotions that we're caused by people other than ourselves can't ever be dealt with by ourselves, & we'll probably never know why they did what they did to us or why they said what they said....So all we can ever do is to fully understand people in general, & why they act like they do..Most people & i wouldn't think any young kid would ever realize this, so instead what they do is to replay over & over again in their mind what happened to them & why did it have to happen etc etc....What that does is gives strength to their emotional mind, making it far stronger than their logical thinking mind which is supposed to be neutral...So they end up being led by their emotional mind, & they end up being a person who reacts with unwanted emotions & feelings....So whenever our ego appears we should meditate it away, & it loses strength each time we do it until our logical neutral thinking mind is back in charge, & we become a person who doesn't ever react negatively.
The only place where I find some need to differentiate between useful ego and un- useful ego is when someone expresses a wish in either glorifying or eliminating it.
The Ego is just one word for a force that we all experience. My practice is about trying to relate to it no differently than any other phenomena. Allow it it's own arising s and departing s within the field of meditative equanimity that can experience it without being compelled to become it.
"I am thinking."
The thinking is the mental arisings and these arisings are inseparable from awareness.
The "I" part is the 7th consciousness, the manos layer, and this is the consciousness that causes all of the problems.
ME.
lol!
'I'
Exactly so. Meditative equanimity, the awake component, Buddha Nature, Nirvana does not arrive or depart. It is the emptiness of form, full awareness. As such we can not become it, nor have we ever left it, it is form emptied of I, me and mine. :hiding: .
Kia Ora,
What do you define as your ego?
The recycling of ones memory of ones past experience...But I could be wrong...
Metta Shoshin
In this specific case, you are....
Kia Ora @federica,
Do you mean to say that ones ego is not in part the interaction of memory, imagination and experience ?
Metta Shoshin:)
Memory is not who you are, because memory is ephemeral and more often than not flawed, invented, added to, and also forgotten.
You can't base who you are on something forgettable.
Shoshin was speaking of the ego. The ego (sense of self) would not be there with no memory. If you wiped the "hard drive" clean I'd say there would be no sense of self...no I ,Me, Mine, no name, no likes or dislikes , etc. Awareness pure might be there untainted by input. Bob
I wouldn't like to say.
I still have my memory, so I couldn't possibly comment for sure....
but just as our emotions do not define who we are, neither does what we remember.
Actions, define who we 'are'.
That is not the point though I agree. Thankfully its not what I think but how I act that counts. ...
... I often act my way into right thinking.... That said I think Shoshins point is valid- sense of self (ego) is a construct ultimately derived from memory. Bob
Form, sensation, thought, activity and consciousness! These are the tools used by the Ego to maintain it's dream construction. (as are memories)
I submit that the question of who you are within such an ethereal make up is up to the individual.
Is it that which you are attached most strongly to or that which is not subject to attachment?
and if you think you are just part of that dream, what happens when one awakens from it?
@how, And mindfulness of form, feeling, mood, and phenomena are the four bases of mindfulness that are fruitful to notice.
I think that ego is strongly attached to. VERY strongly. That which is not subject to attachment is the emptiness of awareness itself. When you realize it is a dream then the releasing of attachment is itself awakening. (when you wake from a real dream actually it is simultaneously waking from a dream (or nightmare) and simultaneously forming attachment to the waking world (which also may or may not be a nightmare).
In "The Word of the Buddha," Nyanatiloka says:
"In the absolute sense, there is not individual, no person; what exists is merely these perpetually changing combinations of physical conditions, sensations, perceptions, volitions, and phases of consciousness."
'We' are an aggregate of unstable elements. Ego would be like buying into a fixed sense of self, except that the landscape shifts as you walk. Even the way you process your memories, your experiences or your imagination changes with time.
An event you could find painful in your childhood, might not bother you so much twenty years later. The memory of your first kiss could be less romantic if that boyfriend breaks your heart a couple of years later. Giving birth is terribly painful but some years later you get over it to the point that you find yourself wanting to have another baby.
What Buddhism calls 'Ignorance' is not only lack of knowledge but also wrong knowledge. Striving to hold onto a fixed sense of ego blocks the access of the new information that constantly impacts your senses and the natural processing of your past experience in order to keep your outlook on things unconditioned.
@dharmamom Still it intrigues me that without memory I do not believe that sense of self could exist. Everything we know is memory. Bob