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.
How does "ego" relate to Buddhist thought?
DairyLama
Veteran Veteran
People often mention "ego" in discussions here, but I'm not sure we've clearly established what it is and how it relates to Buddhist thought.
I think ego roughly corresponds to self-view in Buddhism, the sense of "me", something we identify with and grasp at.
But it that's correct, are we then trying to get rid of the ego? Or are we trying to see the ego for what it is, an appearance or perhaps an illusion? And how does ego relate to not-self, no-self etc?
What do you think?
3
Comments
I'll be honest, I personally think of the ego as the personification of one's character, temperament and personality. In my mind, I would capitalise it, if I personally felt the Ego was getting bigger than the person.
like any other attachment it's ok to have it, just don't give it any more lasting importance than anything else you possess. It's fleeting, changeable, transitory and honestly, no real big deal.
I have problems distinguishing between self and ego but it could be that the self is necessary while the ego is not.
If we try to get rid of our sense of individuality, are we not trying to fight nature or go against the grain of how things develop?
I think waking up is only natural and not trying to fight anything so getting rid of something instead of using it as a tool seems to go against the grain and trying to fight what is.
We are all unique and with the proper guidance, every one of us could be good at something we enjoy that the rest can benefit from.
Duality is our tool, not the other way around.
I've just thought of something I learnt during my Shiatsu days, when our teacher - a great guy who in essence, opened the door to Buddhism, a crack further - once said to us ( a propos of something too convoluted to go into right now):
"Observe the problem you're facing and ask yourselves this important question:
'How much will this really matter in a week/month/year from now?' "
Evaluate it, and put it into perspective.
Chances are, whatever is making it vitally important NOW, is actually just the Ego insisting on being validated.
On a personal level, I have done this quite a bit, and I would say out of a token 50 situations, maybe 2 - at a push, 3 - have merited pursuing.
The remainder?
"Aw shove it, let it go, it's all 'small stuff' anyway...."
The ego always wants more and therefore can't be really happy -> suffering.
I can tell when I am acting out of ego versus when I am not. 99.9% of the time, it's ego. Sometimes I'm lucky to catch it and tell it to shut up and sit in the corner, lol. It's like the opposite of acting from the heart. Like the ego jumps in and interrupts that process because it wants us to think of ourselves first, not others. Short circuiting it and changing how you think gives the ego less power so you can think/act from the heart rather than from the ego.
As a gregarious animal (sorry for my obsessions...) the ego of a human being compares itself to the others and does't want to be worse than the others. The ego wants more and wants to get bigger. But that ego is not the true self of a human being. These may be more like my personal opinions than my superficial understanding of Buddhism.
Yes, self-view would probably be a better alternative, though ego -no capital letters- is, well, a pejorative Western term for a mistaken, oversized self-view.
The way I understand it, it's not that we're trying to get rid of the ego, except when we use it as an instrument for duality, the me-versus-you mindset.
When we cling to an unrealistic fixed image of our own person, and suffer as consequence of discovering its impermanence, its being an offshoot to myriad interplays of cause and effect, its ever-fluctuating nature.
The self-view is the total composite of the different skandhas that make up what we conventionally call "me."
The Abrahamic traditions are dualistic. Good/bad, virtue/sin, God/human... I have thought the same way: when we don't regard the other people as competitors, we can appreciate them deeper.
"How does "ego" relate to Buddhist thought?"
It could be seen as that which one is not fully aware of until after the fact
When looking at what is the ego. it can be 'sensed' when studying the Five Aggregates & Dependant Origination...
Trying and explain what the ego is by having to use ones ego, more often than not complicates things...
In the long run it's best to find out for one'self' through "personal experience/exploration"
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/intro_bud.htm
"The Buddhist doctrine of egolessness seems to be a bit confusing to westerners. I think this is because there is some confusion as to what is meant by ego. Ego, in the Buddhist sense, is quite different from the Freudian ego. The Buddhist ego is a collection of mental events classified into five categories, called skandhas, loosely translated as bundles, or heaps.
If we were to borrow a western expression, we could say that "in the beginning" things were going along quite well. At some point, however, there was a loss of confidence in the way things were going. There was a kind of primordial panic which produced confusion about what was happening. Rather than acknowledging this loss of confidence, there was an identification with the panic and confusion. Ego began to form. This is known as the first skandha, the skandha of form.
After the identification with confusion, ego begins to explore how it feels about the formation of this experience. If we like the experience, we try to draw it in. If we dislike it, we try to push it away, or destroy it. If we feel neutral about it, we just ignore it. The way we feel about the experience is called the skandha of form; what we try to do about it is known as the skandha of impulse/perception.
The next stage is to try to identify, or label the experience. If we can put it into a category, we can manipulate it better. Then we would have a whole bag of tricks to use on it. This is the skandha of concept.
The final step in the birth of ego, is called the skandha of consciousness. Ego begins to churn thoughts and emotions around and around. This makes ego feel solid and real. The churning around and around is called samsara -- literally, to whirl about. The way ego feels about its situation (skandha of feeling) determines which of the six realms of existence it creates for itself."
Great answers from everyone.
We will remain conscious, we will have a sense of self, even if enlightened. Self less does not mean without self. The self that we feel is distinct is dependent on the arising of conditions to attach to (dependent origination). The Buddha Nature does not arise, has no conditional being but is always expressed through an ego no matter how purified, advanced or selfless . . .
We not trying to get rid of the ego, just be aware of its transitory and dependent cravings and attachments.
We can have an increasingly empathic, intuitive, kind, loving, wise ego. That is not something to rid ourselves of but to cultivate or perhaps more correctly allow as a natural unfolding of our Real Being.
That's good news, because I'm happy with my ego, and I didn't want to have to give it up.
We had some problems in the past when I wished that things were different, but it seems to be worked out now.
My ego tries to get along in the world. People don't mind it for the most part, and it's put me in the way of some interesting experiences.
Try as I might I can't seem to get a handle on what it means.
I think ego means distinguishing a difference between the observer/awareness and the experience/arising. So it means duality.
But it really depends on the context. It can mean pride..
ego is like letting your passions overwhelm the intellect so that your decisions are not rational or logical. subduing the ego means to have it agree with serving others which is not the natural condition. naturally we're animals only caring for ourselves. Only when we care for others, total strangers or even enemies, then we're acting altruistically as opposed to egoistically. sticking to friends and family only is still somewhat egoistic and selfish... To be human is to transcend Nature and go against the regular plan of development which is through pain and suffering because that's the only way we learn usually and are therefore treated like the animals we are. But being human is like having the mind of G-d and acting in the right way with the right motivation every time as you (the seflish/evil part) yourself have ceased to exist and are now immersed in Divinity and are therefore directed by it.
I don't think there's anything wrong with having an ego. It's impossible not to have one. Having it and not attaching to it are two different things.
In other words.........
Of course. Sounds good. Fish, be human, carry on living and experiencing. Good plan.
Being 'in the world but not of the world' is the path of the lay Buddhist. Very often initially we have to create a skilful duality or mind awareness of our dual nature. The inner stillness we increasingly find in formal sitting and the turmoil, torrent of ups and downs, that are responded to mindlessly by our egoic being.
Be Still even in the oceans of samsara. That is closer to 'no self' but it finds being or form in our ordinaryness, our ego if you will. That is my plan - ordinary Buddhas.
That there is a thinker of thoughts, or a hearer of sounds apart from the sounds themselves.
The one who has dreams, aspirations and goals in life.
The complete sense of who exactly we think we are.
I believe this is a mistaken view, it's what separates myself from other. Its what separates us from the rest of the world. Like @Jeffrey state. This is the cause of believed duality.
I feel the ego is a delusion, it's the belief in something that doesn't exist. We believe it does and that's the problem.
It leaves out all the panoramic experience of our existence.
You don't need to ego to talk, to walk, to make decisions.
Good ego or bad ego, it's this that keeps us trapped. It's the most powerful belief we have.
You don't have to get rid of the ego, because it doesn't exist. You just have to find this out Experientially.
And my ego has a lot to say about this!!! XD
My two cents anyways.
A student asked Bodidharma (spelling?) master please, I have no peace of mind!"
Bodidharma then said, show me your mind! I'll pacify it for you!
Student said, but when I look for my mind I can't find it?
He then said, there it's pacified.
Student then had an awakening.
Try look for the ego... Don't think. Just look.
I'm still not sure what meaning we're assuming for "ego", so I checked here:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ego
There are several definitions here. I was assuming meaning 1, but it's interesting to note 3a and 3b, self-esteem v. egotism.
I agree about the attachment problem, though in Theravada self-view is a fetter, something to be abandoned.
Yes, that seems to be the basic definition, a sense of ourselves as separate from the world. So are you saying the idea is to get rid of the ego and thereby overcome duality?
It seems people do often use "ego" in a pejorative way to mean egotism, or somebody being on an "ego-trip", that's probably confusing things a bit.
Yes, that does seem to develop with Buddhist practice. But do you see this as the goal, or as a precursor to "abandoning" the ego?
How do we relate this to teachings on anatta and sunyata? I'm wondering if the 2 truths approach might be useful here, conventional v. ultimate reality?
In the sense you mean it, I totally agree.
However . . . are details important in grammar, cooking and cushion selecting? They are of course. We do not let go of the details of living, we live them free of our buttock clenching attachment, one cheek to another . . .
'No ego' is not a Buddha zoned out zombie as many of us know and describe. No ego is as @SpinyNorman and others might say, less personal attachment to egotistical egotism, tight arsed 'this is the right and only way'.
Still ego? Ego still? Small stuff . . . as some have mentioned, not only small but nowhere to be grasped . . .
Have a softly boiled ego for breakfast, with toasty soldiers.... what a lovely way to start the day....
The human ego has a colourful imagery. Some philosophists say the other animals are not aware of their death which is not categorically true. But a strong imagery + awareness of death = lot of suffering (-> spiritual seeking). Secondly it's better not to listen all the stories of the past and future my ego is trying to tell me. I think (my ego is telling that) I haven't enough age left to pacify my ego. (Maybe I have put my words in a stupid way. I have a phobia that the others want to push me for my mistakes.)
This well-known passage from the Bahiya Sutta does seem to say that the ego is a source of suffering and therefore something to be transcended or abandoned.
"Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen..... When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."
Yes, that's a good way of looking at it.
Logically and the way it is stated implies that the illusion is not being here. Like we would try to trick the conventional self into not existing in the first place.
It says we should train the self to not be here but if it wasn't really here no training would be necessary or even available... There would be no unique perspectives on anything at all.
Maybe that is how Bahiya needed it phrased but again, without the conventional sense of self, there is no waking up to anything.
If it is illusion, it is a necessary one at least up until a certain point. Unless one would simply quit functioning. Then in order to train it we still have to use it as a tool in order to train.
Perhaps I'm confused but if so, doesn't that only confirm what I'm saying? For if there is no ego and never was then what do we call that which is confused and can awaken?
Did Buddha wake up to see that Sidhartha never really existed or was it that he could no longer be Sidhartha now that he saw through it.
Are we just the glass in the window that must be opened for some fresh air?
Is it all just a play on words?
The way to make any sense of it, in my eyes, is to sit, bring the Mind 'home', cease or halt the thoughts, eyes closed, breathe, and - sit.
What then?
Carry on sitting.
That was a good advice for me. Just to leave words that lead nowhere.
Ego leads to anger. We see the thing we hate as outside our selves and substantial and try to destroy it or see it to be destroyed. When really it is our own awareness where the anger resides. Same with greed. We see something outside us as our happiness when really our happiness resides right in our awareness.
So yes I suppose we 'get rid of ego'.
In Buddhism somewhere (don’t ask me for a source, I‘d have to look it up) it says that comparing is not helpful.
Thinking that I am superior, thinking that I am inferior, and thinking that I am equal, are all beside the point; are all forms of ego. Just don’t compare.
Comparing can be weird and complicated, I think.
Your ego is bigger than mine (so I am superior).
I’m beyond trying to fake not having an ego (so I’m superior)
Source...? (J/K.....)
Do you happen to have a link/source for that? Sorry @federica didn't mean to copy you.
You're forgiven.
...
No, it's quite straightforward. Realising it is the tricky bit!
I think we're back to the importance of mindfulness, observing and investigating our experience.
Tee Hee, for some that is all we got . . .
I would suggest the clinically logical and dreamily intuitive can both find it most useful to find a Middle Way from our internal and external companions.
This is why developing The Heart (compassion) is so useful for the head cases and discipline a wise move for the Shangria La-La Landers . . . Too harsh? Ah well, maybe it is time to drop my conceits and listen to others . . .
. . . and now back to the egoless conceit . . .
Or maybe we're not logical enough? I mean there is an inescapable logic to Buddhist thought, maybe the problem is our inability to face it?
The sun IS a burning ball of gas in space!
That's a belief, not an experience. The conditioned logical mind will say it's fact. But is it? How do you truly know?
What if you are already in nirvana but believe you are not? Haha.
Probably why people laugh when they wake up a lot of the time!
@SpinyNorman Logic is no good, you can't think your way out of the trap, it has to be realised by intuitive awareness, I don't think you can force it either everything is influenced by pre-existing causes and conditions. Of course meditating creates the conditions for the fruit of the path to arise.
Maybe.
It is a question worth facing up to. What are the required conditions of our awakening? I do notice that many Western Buddhists [actung! actung! generalisation coming up] are too much 'in their heads', many trying to get to their heads via their nether regions.
I find the term @Lonely_Traveller uses, intuitive awareness, a loose form of logic, that Goldilocks would approve of - just right.
We may say, 'I think this feels right' or 'I feel this is right thought'. Middle Way.
@lobster it is a term Ajahn Sumedho uses in a lot of his writings. It sums it up for me.
Could you remind us what he means by "intuitive awareness"?
@SpinyNorman He's referring to that quality of awareness that is purely aware and not caught up in the thoughts and feelings. For example you feel fear but that which is aware of your fear doesn't feel fear. It has a spacious quality to it and room for anything to arise and cease within it. You can just rest in it and allow the dhammas to arise and pass.
Oh right. I think he means consciousness without surface ( anidassanam ), though technically that's descriptive of consciousness in the enlightened state, so it's a real stretch trying to apply it in the everyday way he suggests.
Actually I think sati covers this kind of "pure awareness" quite adequately.