Is the ego always bad?
zenguitar
Bad BuddhistNew England Veteran
Here is a question that could well prove to be controversial: Is the ego always bad? In my understanding, the whole point of Buddhism is to completely eliminate the delusion that you exist as a separate self. That delusion can be equated with the ego. And yet, it could be argued that some of the greatest achievements of humankind in the fields of art, music, science, technology, medicine, etc were certainly fueled (at least in part) by individuals asserting their sometimes large egos while simultaneously chasing after fame, recognition, money, etc. That is, they were acting in a rather un-Buddhist manner, and they may not have all been happy personally--and yet they accomplished great things that produced benefits for posterity. So this leads me to think that the ego can’t be all bad. Can it?
Comments
No.
This has been a topic of discussion many times, and is not controversial at all....
Well, to start with, that's not "the whole point" of Buddhism
Well, it's isn't a question of good/bad either
Isn't the purpose of Buddhism also to release people from Samsara?
No.
YOUR purpose in Buddhism is to release YOURSELF from Samsara.
@federica thank you I will change it then: Isn't the purpose of a Buddhist to release himself from Samsara?
Advances in science, technology and etc are worldly achievements mankind has make it happen.
Buddhism is not just a useful tool for you advancing in your spiritual path and it can also be applied to living life as lay people.
These two can coexist and they are not mutually exclusive. Just a thought.
>
The Buddha told us "I come to teach Suffering and the Transcendence of Suffering".
Our objective is to follow his directions and realise that we ALREADY have Nibbana within our grasp.
The objective is not to release ourselves.
our objective is to stop resisting.
I see. This is a great link, thanks @federica
I don't have the self-control to read all the other responses before I post, so I'll be repeating some of them and contradicting others (well, it might seem I am but it's not my intention).
No. Hell no, the ego must not 'go'
. The ego is a magnificent and useful creature, and through no fault of its own, being the apparent pinnacle of intelligent existence, it mistakes itself for the highest power or truth. The Buddha (and the other master Teachers, in one way or another) came and informed us this is not so, and taught us how to do this monumentally difficult task of putting the ego in perspective and in it's proper 'place'.
IMO it is simple human misunderstanding/mistranslation (assisted by the reluctant ego) that placed the idea of quashing the ego into 'pop' culture.
And I totally agree with you, if it were not for some formidable and bloated beyond reason egos, the rest of us would be short on MANY benefits we take for granted
It takes 'ego' to put yourself and your ideas or creations (and, erm, type out your views on a forum) out there. Who else does all the
arguingI mean, debating around here? Egos, who are sort of built with the need to be 'right'. Unplug the need to be 'right' or sure and the ego loses much of it's base.It is quite a big discussion point in the west, as far as I can see, and worthy of threads to post and discuss, cuz for me at least, I learn a little more about how my own ego operates and it is a crafty little devil sometimes.
The aspiration of a Buddhist on the foundational vehichle may be along those lines - individual liberation. A Mahayanist would have the aspiration of liberation for the benefit of beings. A Vajrayanist would aspire to Buddhahood for the benefit of beings.
"Buddhism", as such, has no set "purpose", and a Buddhist's aspiration can change over time.
Thank you @federica and @Chaz then it is hard to understand the purpose to the works of the ego in a Buddhist perspective. Because either one lives in a hut and sings and tell stories to each other to pass the time or live at an appartment watching television and playing playstation doesn't one still has to get unatached from all those things in order to free oneself from Samsara? Does it matter if one goes by plain, train, horse or walking, lives surrounded by the monuments of ego or by nature?
From @federicas link . . . Click on no
From this perspective, egolessness would be a disaster. A person devoid of ego functions would be self-destructive: either a beast with uncontrolled impulses, or a neurotic, repressed automaton with no mind of her own, or an infantile monster thrashing erratically between these two extremes. Anyone who tried to abandon ego functioning would arrest his psychological growth and lose all hope of becoming a mature, responsible, trustworthy adult. And as we know, self-destructive people don’t destroy only themselves. They can pull down many of the people and places around them.
This is not only the view of trained Western psychologists. Buddhist communities in the West have also begun to recognize this problem and have coined the term “spiritual bypassing” to describe it: the way people try to avoid dealing with the problems of an unintegrated personality by spending all their time in meditation retreats, using the mantra of egolessness to short-circuit the hard work of mastering healthy ego functioning in the daily give and take of their lives.
Doh!
We haz plan Mr Cushion? Become a healthy do nut with no thing at the centre?
As to it being hard to understand the purpose to the works of the ego in a Buddhist perspective, take a step back and perceive what biases you are employing to understand WITH.
You (and me, and everyone except perhaps the awakened ones) are not understanding any 'thing' without personal biases. You know, beliefs and attitudes that operate beneath the surface of awareness. These beliefs and attitudes go unquestioned and unnoticed, and worse, distort our ability to even form good questions in the first place. This isn't something that you do in a weekend, it's about knowing that your perceptions are incomplete and what you are perceiving through causes certain ideas to appear incomprehensible.
The narrower in scope your unquestioned assumptions are, the less you will be capable of understanding.
If you do not understand something (anything), it is just as likely that YOU are hindered in your ability to clearly perceive as the idea itself being 'wrong'. Nah, it's more likely
and that is from personal experience.
In other words, one of the functions of sangha is fertilization and cross fertilization. No flower (or person
) is fertilized with it's petals closed. Begin with a much truer assumption -- your ignorance is by far greater than your knowledge. That will cause your mind to open farther, and for more information to nourish and edify you 
There is a very cool and very true saying; if one person tells you that you are drunk, go ahead and have another drink, what do they know? If three people tell you you are drunk, then you'd better stop and go home while you can.
Being a lone voice in a wilderness of the ignorant is an excellent example of ego run amok.
Okay, thanks everyone, my ego has learned a thing or two. And it's glad it doesn't need to leave entirely.
I'd say no. Personally, I think it's better to think of Buddhism being more about constructing a healthy sense of self than deconstructing the idea of self altogether, at least at the beginning. For example, see Thanissaro Bhikkhu's essay, "The Wisdom of the Ego," in this collection of essays (begins on pg 44).
Kia Ora,
Is the ego always bad?
No...............................
Thus I have heard (and come to understand)
"One is simply one's experience !
One ego is the abstraction from these experiences.
One's ego should be viewed as a convenient analytic device! "
Metta Shoshin .
..
It is a good thing you felt the need to tell me these things though they are unrelated to what I wrote. But I appreciate them all the same.
>
Simply because one should release attachment, does not mean you have to stop doing those things.
"Ownership" does not denote a negative state...;
You can be surrounded by as many wonders of the world as you wish; just let go of them when you no longer need them.
Simple.
Thank you @federica though I am aware that being attached is different from being in possession of something. My point is that the good things attributed to the ego in this thread seem to me irrelevant to the purpose of liberation from Samsara. Like music, science, technology, etc...In the times of Buddha and all the patriarchs there was nothing of that stuff in the levels we have today.
In itself ego isn't a problem, it's the ego clinging that goes with it. I remember an interview with a famous and successful person (can't remember who, sorry) in which they were asked how hard it is to move on from one success to another. They said the biggest hazard was ego because it was always waiting in the wings to destroy them. Creativity comes from being open and simple, whereas ego clinging closes us down. Ego can make us so wrapped up in the fiction of who we are that we cling to past achievements instead of moving forward. It may be necessary tool but can be a dangerous master.
>
I disagree.
The 'stuff' they had then, affected them to the same extent our 'stuff' does today. It's all relative. if fabulous wealth and riches in those days was counted by the quantity of horses you had, then these creatures were the equivalent of the Ferrari many may covet in modern times.
A servant may be the equivalent of the latest Dyson vacuum cleaner, and the woman who did the laundry, the latest Bosch washing machine...
And don't forget the Buddha had all of that, in spades; servants, dancing girls, fine clothes, good food, riches and material wealth beyond our dreams. He had ample access to Music, Science and Technology (as defined by the constructs of his own time) just as we do today....
I think we have discussed on this forum, the level of intellect or how sapient a person has to be to truly absorb the teachings of the Dhamma....
I hope you are not trying to convince me that material wealth is actualy important to be liberated from samsara? Because that's all I need to hear in this forum to either throw my Buddhist books through the window or ask myself what is exactly western Buddhism all about.
Siddharta is supposed to have lived between the 6-5 centuries BC and according to wikipedia in a peripherical republic :
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha
Whatever he had access to in music, science or technology at that time was a fraction of what we have today. Not to mention that the majority of people at the time had access to a fraction of what he had. So like it or not those were hard times.
No. My point is that what we classify as measures of wealth today are equivalent in value to what the had then, in comparison to their not-so-wealthy fellows in society.
A fast and expensive horse then, was as precious and valuable then, as a fast and expensive car is to us, today. it's an equivalent relative...
>
But you can't compare today's affluence to the level of that available in the Buddha's day. It's an impossible comparison.
He was rich then, in ways that were sumptuous then, just as being rich today is unimaginable to those who have so much less.
Look, when I was a child, a brand new car, just off the production line, cost just over £700, but a year's average salary for a manual worker was £3000.
Now, an equivalent car costs in the thousands, and the disparity between the haves and the have nots is just as relatively wide.
>
All times have 'hard times'.
Walk through any major street in any major city and you will find the homeless and destitute trying to find shelter in doorways and under bridges. People with no money, no clothes, no food, and no refuge, trying to make it through each day, while they are surrounded by signs and examples of obscene affluence. There they are, sitting in doorways surrounded by everything they possess, while rich young things pass by, phones glued to their ears, talking business deals, expensive meals and buying new wheels.
@wanmin I honestly was not thinking of YOU in particular
. I would admit it if I did. I was speaking in a more general way; when you find yourself holding fast to one idea while surrounded (so to speak) by many others who do not agree, it is time to check yourself. Of course this is NOT a concrete proof that the lone wolf is wrong. It is a rational, logical tool adult human beings use to determine what is actually going on. We delude ourselves easily, it's how our minds work.
If you got a sense I was speaking to you in particular, please consider that something in you 'resonated' with what I said.
Just gently let what you sensed was aimed at you sit there and see if there's anything else to come up around it.
Ideas and beliefs are not precious nor should they be defended, that's my opinion of 98% of humanity's current problems. PEOPLE ought to be precious and defended. People equating their worth with their ideas is diminishing human worth to a bunch of words. How backward is that ...?
@federica it seems to me we have started to discuss two separate issues. One is if material wealth and progress achieved by society are relevant to liberation from samsara. I think they are not and to be honest your arguments only corroborate this.
The second issue would be how people's temperament and character could be affected. People didn't have the conforts they have today. If there was a crisis they would not go unemployed, they would starve and die of hunger. Wars were a constant, there were plagues, crime rates were much higher, people were more exposed to climate, things took much more time to be done, meat was scarce to the majority and so were refined grains, people were mostly illiterate. It's difficult to imagine this didn't influence people.
I sometimes think of the ego as a loose compilation of Skandic forces which spend a lot of time looking to solidify their own definition.
Hmmm.... like this thread.
@Hamsaka you answered to a quote of mine and wrote the word "you" several times and once in capital letters in an answer that had nothing to do with what I wrote. I usualy like to discuss concepts and avoiding getting personal but it seems some people around here just like to move to the "you" instead of the subject. I don't see the purpose of that. And to be honest you have nothing to do wether I like to be a lone wolf or to entertain my own opinions against the crowd. If you belong to a closed religious group you should not make this forum accessible to outsiders or should beforehand warn people about contradicting what you and other members say. I have read a bit about Buddhism but haven't met many Buddhists and when I meet them they are usualy not in a group. So maybe I'm not aware of what is the expected behaviour in such a group and this group did appear to me an open group with diversity of thought at first. But then again Buddhism is a religion and if I went to a Catholic, Evangelical or Muslim forum I might also not be welcomed to contradict people.
I will make this my goodbye post to all of you. It was nice to meet you all. Learned some nice things around here. I believe you are all nice and striving for the best. I wish you the best in your path. I will not be upseting your harmony any longer with my differences of opinion. Best regards!
Kia Ora @WanMin,
It pays not to take things personally, just see things for what they are ie, other people's thoughts flowing out through their finger tips onto the keyboard onto a screen...
Thus I have heard/read that the Buddha once said:
"Sabbe Dhamma Nalam Abhinivesaya!"
Nothing whatsoever should be clung too! If one clings one will eventually suffer...
May you find what it is you're looking for...
Metta Shoshin .
..
@WanMin, you have already mentioned you are not Buddhist, and that you perhaps you seeks something different.
Simply because we contradict you does not make us wrong. It merely makes us wrong in your eyes.
As @Shoshin quotes, 'nothing should be clung to' and that includes personal belief and opinion.
'Belief' in Buddhism, stems from total Confidence in the veracity of the Dhamma, and the Buddha's teachings.
Some of the things you have put forward run contrary to the suttas and the Dhamma.
We are merely indicating this.
There is the story of the great professor who goes to meet a wise and respected Sage to learn from him, but with every comment the sage makes, the great University professor counters it with his own personal view.
At that point, the sage begins to pour their tea, and the professor's cup begins to overflow.
The professor, alarmed, asks what on earth the sage thinks he's doing....?!
The sage replies, "Your 'cup' is already full, it seems. Until you are willing to empty it, and leave space for new 'tea' - I can teach you nothing, and nothing I say will remain in your 'cup'."
You're neither encouraged to leave, nor stay. The choice is yours. But if you stay, be prepared to have entrenched and seemingly solid opinions and beliefs challenged.
It's what we have to do with ourselves all the time. Every day is a new challenge to study the Dhamma, and to be prepared to refill our cups.
"Nothing is ever what it seems.
Nor is it otherwise."
I guess I will have to make a repeat in my goodbye post. I find Buddhism is a great influence but as a religion it is not for me like you said. I gained a perspective from reading books only and it was important to gain a different perspective by talking to people.
I actualy have no problem in being chalenged in my ideas though I might cling to the bone until I get a valid reason to let go. So I'm more into emptying my cup if I find something better to fill it in, but I experienced enough in life to want to be sure what I'm replacing it with. Because I learned the hard way that to abandon a wise teaching no matter how bland and unatractive it might look for a spurious one no matter how attractive is cause of regret.
I take your words to be true that my instruction aquired by self education falls short of the real Dharma Buddhists believe.
So I apologize again if I was rude to anyone.
Best regards again.
>
@WanMin, Why would that be, do you think...?
>
This is the very credo I am attempting to get you to examine. Why do you think what you currently have is better than what Buddhism can teach you?
That is a sincere question, I am not goading you or trying to contradict you.
I'm seriously asking you what you have found so far that cannot be supported or nurtured by Buddhism... It's highly possible we can all learn from your perspective too. Things should be shared with an open mind....
>
we have never aked you to 'abandon' anything. We have merely suggested you view it from different perspectives and question it and its durability, for yourself....
>
I would not say that. It may simply need some kind of refinement. But who knows? Life is all about exploring and questioning, and every day is a new experience; no person gazes upon the same river twice....
Best regards again.
Ah, but you see, you came back. Your curiosity at what someone may have responded with, got the better of you. You were still keen to listen, to read, to absorb a further comment.... Someone seriously discouraged and "defiant" of such input, would not have returned.
Your cup has plenty of room in it yet.
No apology necessary.
Come and go, as you please, your profile is always open to you, as are we.
I guess this is one of those repeated goodbyes situations
. About your question I've been doing some introspection and conluded the reason I clashed with some opinions is because I have other beliefs that are incompatible, and while they may not be so incompatible with teachings of books like the Dhammapada, they become more incompatible with practical Buddhism as I found here. I already knew some incompatibilities before coming to this forum but here I found more.
I thank you your kind words.
>
Permit me to make a suggestion you may accept or reject as you see fit, the choice honestly is yours (I would add that this is how I eventually switched boats mid-stream, as it were, and came from Christianity to Buddhism):
Ask yourself, when you examine your own personal beliefs, whether they actually stand and withstand every test you can throw at them.
Will they reliably steer your course in the right direction?
Are they concrete, dependable, reliable and infallible?
Can you always count on them with 100% Confidence?
>
My pleasure, and they are sincere.
The ego is not always bad because there are skillful/good choices to be made.
But I also think that questioning our own thoughts and actions 'all the the time', I think would always prove itself more beneficial than hurtful.
Federica this is a bit of a complex exercise because there are many variables. God has been infalible in my life and when I put myself under His guidance I am usualy moved in the right direction, even if slowly. However Chrsitianity, and Christians have not always been good influences, it depends on the approach. Sometimes accepting these influences has put me in the path of hate and intolerance which is against God. There is also Stoicism which has influenced me and it usualy leads me to good results when I apply it. Maybe my problem is that I dwell among many religions and philosophies and should just stay with one. Maybe I am a schizophrenic with multiple religious personalities?
@wanmin I owe you a huge apology, and here's why; I did quote you, but in my addled memory, thought I'd quoted someone else and then of course wondered why YOU responded to me so personally! D'oh!! So I guess I was talking to you ... well, yeah. What I said, then
.
We recently had a Lobster initiated thread about faith, which basically amounts to believing things to be true even if you have not experienced them and there is no objective framework of fact to support them. I recently discovered I misuse the English word 'faith' in terms of its meaning. I claimed I had complete 'faith' in the Dharma as it has shown itself to me, when I honestly have NO faith in the Dharma but I do believe in the facticity of it and HOPE sincerely, based on previous 'evidence', what I have yet to experience in my practice will be worthy of belief as well.
Our beliefs, in order to be worth anything, must be able to withstand what is contrary to them, similar to the way scientific fact and theory development is made. Theories are not facts but they have withstood trying to prove them wrong, which I am coming to understand is as important as trying to prove them correct. "Buddhism" is a very solid theory, to me, quite worthy of accepting, but only if and until a truer truth succeeds it.
Rejecting ideas that run counter to our current beliefs is a time consuming, thoughtful and contemplative act. It means trying them on and when a new idea proves itself more logical and fact based than the previously held one, let the old one go.
We get much too identified with our beliefs, as if they are parts of our body. I would not reject my own leg, heaven forbid! But an idea, no matter how cherished or supportive of my yet-unquestioned assumptions, is just as idea, and I can thank this new idea for leading me to question my yet-unquestioned assumptions. I can do this without my entire world view collapsing on itself and casting me into COMPLETE confusion and despair. Um, at least that's my intention
.
I'm learning (as you are) to welcome challenges because damn it, I seek truth, and no matter how much an idea masquerades as my left leg, I have to cut it off if it is proven false by something else.
Thank you, no need for apologies then.
What is the ego? If it is desire then it can be overcome.
I perceive the ego as an operating system for this individual body experiencing this individual life with all the multifactorial doo dads and gee gaws (read: fancy words for 'things') that make up the totality of my expression on the world; the ego(s) interact with what appears to be outside this individual 'self' conglomerate and negotiates for the goals from meanest goal on upward.
Yeah, blah blah blah LOL but I do enjoy the upgrades . . .
Kia Ora,
Is the ego always bad?
Define what is meant by bad......
How many egos have participated in this thread ?
I would be a liar if "I" said my ego played no part in my posts...
And as I mentioned earlier, I see it as just a convenient analytic device...to see it as anything other than this would be somewhat egotistical on my part... .
..
Metta Shoshin .
..
The ego, sense of self, is not good or bad is. It would be quite difficult to live without a sense of self. To the extent I am "submerged" in it, identify with it, does it become "problematic", "bad"... Practice helps me create space around the habit of "selfing" as JK-Z puts it. Bob
NB Disclaimer: No separate ego participated in, or was hurt by this thread and if they did it didn't matter anyway! ... \ lol / ...
I like the way Jill Bolte Taylor explains ego here. It demonstrates very clearly that you cannot "eradicate" ego.
Sorry folks. I still do not know how to embed a video. Maybe someone else could help and post the video. It is entitled "My powerful stroke of insight" on Ted Talks.
youtu.be/UyyjU8fzEYU
it's been put here before:
http://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight
(....several times...!
. )
Guilty.....I know I have be responsible for it many times. :aol:
Well I wouldn't argue this, but things made by egos are only valuable to other egos. Another thing I think, is that solutions to problems just create new/different problems.
For me, the ego is a defence mechanism. Your link to the world. It keeps your ass fed and protects your ass from danger. It also looks for other ass to spoon with.
All those are samsaric gains, therefore impermanent. Ego makes people produce karma and continue to trap in this cycle of birth and rebirth.