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.
Ego, "I" Self
Theswingisyellow
Trying to be open to existenceSamsara Veteran
Quick questions regarding the nature of self:
All this is just my understanding, please correct or add to any incorrect or missplaced views:DThe Buddha never took a position on whether there was a "self" or not, not wanting to be an eternalist nor a nihlist. So it would seem the actual question of what is self or the eternal question of "who am I" is missing the point, it is not skillfull nor helpful in eliminating one's suffering. The self is more accurately defined in terms of what it is not, specifically the five aggregates.
The point of practice is to know/learn the truth of suffering and its cessation through practice, not egolessness nor the destruction of self. This being said can one use the concept of self/ego as a skillfull means? I ask as the "self/ego" is what initially drives one to end one's suffering and to improve as a person. Skillfully using this drive or desire to better oneself. So it is okay, for lack of a better term, to have this idea of a healthy self or ego? For me unskillfully useing these concepts is what happens through clinging and becoming, attaching this idea of self to the five aggregates.
Egolessness: was this ever a concept the Buddha spoke of or this a concept later developed? For me no ego is one without drive, what is the point of brushing your teeth, taking care of yourself or even walking the path without the sense of wanting to take care of the self or improve? This again revolves around the idea of skillfull and unskillfull means.
When one reaches Nirvana do these concepts such as "self" drop off like ripe fruit as they are no longer needed? To me these ideas would seem helpful on the path, like tools-such as counting our beath, as they are initial motivators to end one's suffering. When one no longer suffers then one would not need these "tools"
Thanks for your thoughts:)
Todd
All this is just my understanding, please correct or add to any incorrect or missplaced views:DThe Buddha never took a position on whether there was a "self" or not, not wanting to be an eternalist nor a nihlist. So it would seem the actual question of what is self or the eternal question of "who am I" is missing the point, it is not skillfull nor helpful in eliminating one's suffering. The self is more accurately defined in terms of what it is not, specifically the five aggregates.
The point of practice is to know/learn the truth of suffering and its cessation through practice, not egolessness nor the destruction of self. This being said can one use the concept of self/ego as a skillfull means? I ask as the "self/ego" is what initially drives one to end one's suffering and to improve as a person. Skillfully using this drive or desire to better oneself. So it is okay, for lack of a better term, to have this idea of a healthy self or ego? For me unskillfully useing these concepts is what happens through clinging and becoming, attaching this idea of self to the five aggregates.
Egolessness: was this ever a concept the Buddha spoke of or this a concept later developed? For me no ego is one without drive, what is the point of brushing your teeth, taking care of yourself or even walking the path without the sense of wanting to take care of the self or improve? This again revolves around the idea of skillfull and unskillfull means.
When one reaches Nirvana do these concepts such as "self" drop off like ripe fruit as they are no longer needed? To me these ideas would seem helpful on the path, like tools-such as counting our beath, as they are initial motivators to end one's suffering. When one no longer suffers then one would not need these "tools"
Thanks for your thoughts:)
Todd
0
Comments
I think there is an ego, even if it is illusory and impermanent like all other concepts. When following the 8fp, you're quelling the patterns that bring you suffering, or in other words the patterns that snap your view into the ego-view. Through mindfulness, you do come to a deeper understanding of the 4nt and the arising of these phenomena, which slowly erodes their grip on you (their grip being that which forces your view into ego-mind or the mind that self references)
You can be mindful of no-self, but I find it even more helpful to stay mindful that there is no solid meaning to anything we see, including ourself... because then you are having a direct experience of deep transience and subjective/objective realities.
The idea of a healthy ego is slippery, because on one hand, its normal, typical and very unremarkable to have an ego, and yet with it comes confusion. I don't think we should attack ego, rather simply don't identify with the ego. ie, the eyes are seeing, the mind attributing, the ego suffering, the body is hungry, the ears translating vibration. Does that difference make sense? From there, the rest of the stuff falls away when its ready and the time is ripe.
If you attack, then you're trying to attack to detach from something, and that makes you attach more. I like to think of it like earth, where every action and thought implants a seed that grows a fruit. You can't attack the earth, you just implant 'attack/defense'... you can't try to detach from the earth, you just implant 'detach/attach'. When you let go of the needful actions however, you stop planting. This is where mindfulness and the 8fp come in handy.
Hope it helps
With warmth,
Matt
A concept of self isn't necessary for brushing teeth. When I'm focused on brushing my teeth, the concepts of self and non-self don't come up.
All phenomena both within and without... are selfless. All things are conditions that become causes that affect change and become the new set of conditions that will determine that which comes after.
~
I am very poor at adequately conveying these ideas well.
I guess in a nutshell my question was:
Does a sense of self/ego no matter how it is cobbled together (ie. thought, conditions and our form) can it at least initially be viewed as skillfull, if one's desire (which comes from a sense of self) is to improve one's existence/end suffering? What motivates one?
What is the goal; to tear down and remove the ego or end suffering or both? Or does the ego not matter except when it's a part of a false sense of self that we cling to and become with? I ask this question as I have it in my mind, from way back when, that the goal was to kill the Buddha, kill the ego.
aMatt: I would agree with you that the ego is a slippery concept. I like you explanation of how we should regard the ego, as simply a function of the mind. Just another aggregate.
RenGalskap:
I did not mean that we needed the concept of self/ego to brush our teeth. Rather that function of the self/ego, can function in a skillfulway way, that which directs us to care for ourselves and improve ourselves. This was really the question.
Stephen:
I agree with you totally.
Yours in the Dharma,
Todd
The goal is to realize that the self we think exists is a false self, and to through skillful means eradicate all traces of that delusion, replacing ignorance with wisdom of the reality of all things.
As in my signature, this false self is our Mara. It is the only thing that gives rise for any kind of mental suffering to occur.
The dukkha that exists in nature is not really unsatisfactoriness; not really suffering. It is simply the way reality works. The dukkha that we have developed, specific to the human mindset, is through the right conditions eliminated. At that point, we remain aggregates subject to Dependent Origination, but are not at odds with nature; we are at peace.
~
[FONT=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]Enlightenment does not annihilate the ego. Why would someone want to annihilate something so useful and extraordinary? It has not been by chance that we have mentioned many times how important the mind and ego are as the creative force of our intelligence. We need to dissolve this dangerous spiritual conditioning that has taken deep root in our habitual way of thinking. Irresponsible psychological language has caused a lot of harm to those on the Path. The ego concept needs to be defined in a way that relates to our everyday experience, and to all those complicated processes in meditation and on the spiritual Path. [/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]In the case of people without insight into the nature of consciousness, the mental activity is in the center of consciousness. Every thought creates a new center, a new identification which is the ego -- there is nothing else there. We cannot talk about “one” ego but rather about a flow of conscious or semi-conscious events, being capable of operating in a relatively integrated way. This is the function of the ego. [/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]When Enlightenment takes place, the Presence becomes the center, and there is the feeling that all the thoughts are only witnessed objects-events on the periphery of consciousness; they are guests coming and going, having nothing to do with the stillness of our being. For that reason, it is easy to conclude that there is only Witnessing, and the rest is irrelevant, impersonal and objective. But this popular conclusion is one-dimensional and is not able to grasp the dynamics of human consciousness. Thoughts are being witnessed and observed. The center is empty and uninvolved. Is that all? Not fully. Although the thoughts are witnessed, the intelligence which is using them represents also a parallel center of relative consciousness - it is also the “Me.” [/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]We can speak about two centers within us, as manifested beings: one is the Witnessing Consciousness -- a constant flow of presence, and the second is the moving self-conscious center of our personality. When we see this clearly, there is no doubt that the thoughts, which are being witnessed, are simultaneously an indivisible part of Me, and it is Me who is thinking them! In the case of an Enlightened being, although thoughts have a different quality, still they remain as a function of consciousness and as a functional self-relating center, which we interpret as “me.” The absolute Me and the relative me are one. Being and self-conscious expression are one. [/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]The ego concept refers not only to the gross level of thinking or to the gross will. We have already spoken about the fact that to divide our consciousness into thinking and not-thinking is far too simplistic. Consciousness is extraordinarily rich. There is intuitive knowing, feeling, gentle checking and being attentive to what is happening in our consciousness and surroundings. This movement of intelligence has a quality of self-referral which is also what we call -- the ego. The personality without Presence is ignorance of course, but Presence without the personality is like a tree without fruit, the sun without rays or a flower without fragrance. They are one organic whole. When we fully understand that ego is “good,” the whole issue of eliminating it drops off by itself. But this is not yet the end. We are coming now to the next complicated problem: what kind of ego should we have?
the rest of the article is here.....
[/FONT]http://the-wanderling.com/ego.html
[FONT=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]
[/FONT]
Not skillful, not really... in my opinion at least. You could say "good intentioned" but even so you'll have 'dirty good intentions' or intent that is tainted by self-referencing desire. That's not to say that the ego or self needs to be viewed as demonic either. It simply acts in a way that is not ultimately skillful. The 8fp is important because it gives you something to do in order to help overcome that paradigm.
A good example for me is my teacher. When I asked him questions, he would get into my mind and answer things in a way that was directly for me. Not really psychically, but more, he was quiet enough inside, that when I spoke my intentions and quandaries that he could listen totally and see what I was seeing. He wasn't "oh, I can teach him a precept" or "oh, I can help this person"... an "I" simply didn't come up.
Contrast that with... I have also been to new age healers, who appeared to be thinking "yes! a patient that I can show how powerful I am" as they told me all about their accomplishments and visions and whatnot, never actually seeing me and my needs.
I would say that the goal is to stop identifying with the self. Ending suffering is part of the path. Killing the Buddha is part of the path. Stopping clinging is part of the path. Helping others is part of the path. The goal, if there is any, is to step aside and interact skillfully with the world of shapes and forms directly.
With warmth,
Matt
"I would say that the goal is to stop identifying with the self. Ending suffering is part of the path. Killing the Buddha is part of the path. Stopping clinging is part of the path. Helping others is part of the path. The goal, if there is any, is to step aside and interact skillfully with the world of shapes and forms directly"
So in this light and in my opinion, ideas of the ego being skillfull or unskillfull are like ideas of what is the self and "who am I" they are ultimately moot, unproductive and inconsequential, for in these things and knowing these things the path is not to be found.
To dennis 60;
Thank you for the good article regarding this. This idea of ego killing was something I was beginning to refocus on, this idea that I had to drown the ego. Where I got this, I am not totally sure. I think it has something to do with my earlier Zen practice when I first started out. For me I will regard the ego as just a mental function, an aggregate and nothing more.
Thanks guys for all the input it helps to clear up my misperceptions. I believe some of the notions are hard ingrained and were ultimately wrong or at least unskillfull views i developed back in the late 90's when I first started studying Buddhism.
Yours in the Dharma,
Todd
When you see that all dhammas are empty of self, you see that the idea of being a cause or an effect is a mental construct.
Hmmm. We can see phenomena when in harmony with the true nature... depending on your term meanings. We see that phenomena have no fixed status... no solid meaning... no ultimate, absolute definition. I doubt that subjective meaning is abandoned, which sounds like nihilism. Halfway between the view where phenomena have no meaning or form and where phenomena have a fixed or static form is the middle ground where ideas and objects have a real and tangible subjective meaning but no true static or fixed qualities.
When in harmony there isn't a disassociating... rather, we are accepting that the nature of phenomena is transient, subjective, non-fixed. Seeing that 'archetypes only exist when you're not in harmony with that true nature' is missing much of what is happening in the world of colors.
With warmth,
Matt
Yours in the Dharma,
Todd
I love your example of the broken arm. It would allow for a more skillful interaction. You wouldn't say "son, your suffering is impermanent, suck it up" because that would not be helpful. You'd naturally move to comfort him, you yourself staying stable and understanding his pain is transient. ie no "omg, my son's arm waaaa" Instead, you'd be free to be skillful in relating to those who dance in subjective space with out deep roots into formlessness.
I think its funny that people attach to formlessness, and then preach it.
I think that the Buddha was one of the greatest psychologists that ever lived. In investigating thoroughly, I think he came to find that the mind was a fine instrument for seeing what isn’t, and not quite so effective on seeing what "IS", simply because the mind is so 'dog-gone' suggestible; as in auto-hypnosis, followed by habitual thoughts.
So Buddha said our best bet was to get rid of what isn’t, and only after that to see quite naturally what remained standing, or what "IS."
Obviously if there was a Real Self we would not be able to eliminate it completely. So in this way, Self would take care of itself.
Unfortunately some person’s thought that meant we should preconceive (logically) what was the case, and to start killing anything that didn’t conform to our own ideas…
This way goes neurosis, as the very definition of neurosis is to create a lovely self that we preferred to be and not to let anything, not even facts, interfere with this favorite story.
Our world, after all, is only an extension of who we subjectively believe ourselves to be. So a suffering neurotic creates a suffering world to live in.
I have never known a happy neurotic. Its hard work to support a fiction, isolating, and they suffer from even slight disagreements about their personhood.
I also believe that Buddha wanted us to see through illusions, and in this way to let them melt away naturally. Trying to force this discovery is a little like "Trying to herd cats," and simply can't be done.
; ^ )
Warm Regards,
S9
When I refer to the mind, most times I mean the conventional understanding of the small (m) mind, which is what people think of as the brain mind. I do not often bother to say anything about it contrasting the large (M) Mind, which is more like what some might call the cosmic or universal mind (shared mind, very Jungian) because it would in most cases only confuse most Buddhist (I believe). Most Buddhists don’t often think of mind in this way. I am sorry if this confuses you.
: ^ (
If I had been speak with say a Hindu group, I would of course have to make this distinction more clear, because they often speak in these terms.
I see Awareness as transcendent of the small (m) mind, which includes the ego, and yes Awareness in its own object, and not within the mind itself. In fact I see mind as allowed to be dreamlike within Awareness, like a wave is allowed within the ocean.
But, do not confuse Awareness with "Bare Attention," which is a mind practice of looking directly without preconceptions.
I hope this is clearer. : ^)
Obviously we all use our words a little bit differently, esp. because of coming to Buddhism, often from many various traditions.
I like your picture. It was quite amusing. Is it saying something representational about my writing? ; ^ ) That is about how my friends see me. ; ^ )
Friendly Regards,
S9