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 and Buddhism
Is Buddhism trying to eliminate the ego through meditation? I was just watching Louis Theorux documentary on Indian Gurus and there is a guy there who talks about destroying his ego. I have to say not only did he freak Louis out he freaked me out.
What do you guys think about the ego? and if you dont mind including a small definition of what you think ego is just so I can understand better.
To me ego is a sense of self, of the meaning you give to your life. Although I know its not a static thing but it is still me in the most personal of senses. If I chose to change directions, it is because I chose to do so.
and here is the video is anyone is interested.
What do you guys think about the ego? and if you dont mind including a small definition of what you think ego is just so I can understand better.
To me ego is a sense of self, of the meaning you give to your life. Although I know its not a static thing but it is still me in the most personal of senses. If I chose to change directions, it is because I chose to do so.
and here is the video is anyone is interested.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
as with the concept of deities; self has many aceptions.
From the Dhammapada verse 279
"All things are not-self" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.
.
To see this you would not to 'do' which requires 'effort' one of the eight fold path. This cannot happen unless you try, however clinging to such a notion will not get you there as you are grasping. So, how does one get around this oxymoron
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.20.budd.html
Hare krishna
The word is modern.
The concept of anatta is not exactly the same thing, imho.
Ego is used as a word describing the deluded mind, I suppose.
Especially it would refer to delusions about who I am (and about the importance of this delusional me).
Maybe Jung and his idea of individuation is the source of introducing the word “ego” in eastern spirituality?
I could not find an answer to that right away.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungian_interpretation_of_religion#Introduction_to_Jungian_psychology
.
To answer your other question, "the Tibetan method" requires devoting oneself to a guru completely for an extended period of time. Other members have mentioned that there are Tibetan lamas in Thailand, so this might be available to you. First, you may want to read about the Tibetan saint, Milarepa's experience with the "method".
Buddhism surely is about destroying the ego. You might have heard about no-self, interdependence, form is emptiness, etc. We have all these seemingly confusing terms.. some other religions use God to give it a name, but in the first place they all mean the exact same thing which is the non-existence of the ego. I say non-existence because the funny thing is, it doesn't really exist, it is a delusion. It's a trick of the mind to defend itself. Thinking it is just a poor little thing that has to fight its own way through life.
It's the ego that holds onto fixed plans and finds the classes boring in the first place. So if it's gone, you don't need to worry about those plans or the boredom anymore.
With metta,
Sabre
From a Buddhist perspective, trying to destroy the ego is giving it way too much credit.
Its ok to feel pride but it is a passing thing and we cannot fix it. The whole point of ego is that we can't fix it we just stop grasping. Cannot fix samsara.
The way I have successfully dealt with boring classes have been, understanding why I have to pass them, trying to find certain appealing things and generally speaking, manning up and stop thinking how bad they are and just do it.
I dont know, the more I think of it, the more I seem to like the ego. Like almost anything in life it can be either a curse or a blessing. I believe if you use it mindfully you can put it on the path of great achievements and happiness but if you let it run wild it will be a curse. It would seem like right ego is better then no ego.
What you describe isn't the ego. The ego is what tells you your classes must always be enjoyable for you to do them!
http://madhyamavani.fwbo.org/2/refugetree.html
Metta to all sentient beings
"So how do we overcome the ego? There is an old Zen saying: ‘If you want to control a wild bull, give it a big field to roam in’."
"In going for Refuge to the Three Jewels, to whatever degree we do it, we place our ego-identity within the field of the bodhichitta,the field of spiritual influence which radiates outwards from the great Refuge Tree, and the more we go for Refuge, the more fully and deeply do we locate ourselves within it."
Metta to all sentient beings
Thanks for the article. It really doesnt speak to me. Let go of your ego to embrace this "other power" and be a vessel for that. It seems like the answer to "how do you become the best race car driver?" is to give up being a race car driver and move on to more "important" things. I also dont go into all the Bodhichitta aspect, it just doesnt appeal to me.
Chogyam Trungpa, in his book Smile at Fear, refers to this as 'windhorse' an element borrowed from Tibetan shamanism.
"How do we proceed at this point on the warrior's path?
The mechanism or technique that we use is to invoke windhorse,
or lungta. The practice of windhorse is a way of casting out
depression and doubt. It takes the form of a cheering up process.
That is to say, invoking windhorse actualizes the living aspect
of fearlessness and confidence."
I see you typed you think you can use the ego? If you can let the ego run wild or control it, you apparently think the ego is something YOU have. And that sense of you actually owning something is exactly what is caused by the ego. Can you see it?
Yes, it's confusing. Trying to understand the ego through thinking it out just doesn't work. It's like a dog chasing its tail. You can run forever this way, just going around in circles. Actually, you can not do anything, because everything you do is the ego at work.. But even an intellectual understanding of that is not enough, so we need the insights we get by following the path to see through it.
And it takes courage. Ajahn Chah said something like: "Not a lot of people are willing to die to become free, sadly." Of course, he was talking about the death of the ego and not physical death.
May I suggest you read some books or listen to some talks by Alan Watts. He brings these teachings in a very inspiring and interesting way and it helped me a lot.
With metta,
Sabre
Killing the ego is liberation & the essense of the Buddha's teachings
If we fight this, we are a warrior against the Buddha-Dhamma and just a moral crusader
:-/
BECAUSE THE BUDDHA'S basic terms of analysis were actions understood under the framework of cause and effect, we have to understand his use of "self" and "not-self" under that framework. For him, "self" and "not-self" aren't metaphysical principles. They're mental actions that can be mastered as skills. This is why he was able to use both concepts freely in his teaching.
I think he doesn't have a different outlook, but just emphasizes it should not be the main teaching, like teachers such as Tolle and Adyashanti always do. They keep talking about the ego all the time, like it is the force of all evil. If you think you ARE the ego, you begin to think you are the force of all evil.. And I can agree with Thanissaro Bhikkhu on that, of course this is not a very Buddhist way, because we should also be able to love ourselves and to hear about our bad ego every day could get us depressed.
But in the end it all just depends on what you call ego. Do you call the ego you yourself and everything you are or is ego the view that you are a separate self? There is a difference here. That's why in Buddhism the word ego isn't really used that often, but we use non-self instead. That might change a word, avoiding confusions, but doesn't really change the essence of the teachings.
I thought the article was good, especially the great metaphors used. Anyway it made sense to me and I could relate to what it was saying.
Metta to all sentient beings
One aggregate is called the "sankhara" or "formations" aggregate. This aggregate allows us to carry out projects or just to go to work and apply our expertise to tasks. It can function quite well, in fact better, without ego.
As for confidence, the Buddha taught jhana & enlightenment provide the supreme confidence.
The less ego, the more bliss. The less ego, the more liberation.
:om:
However, it is not about being "willing" to die. I disagree with Ajahn Chah here. It is about "seeing" the need.
On this thread, the same, like Moral_Crusader, who are warriors for rebirth are warriors against killing the ego.
:eek2:
the "ego" is always an illusion and the "ego" that interacts with people is just a mental formation
it is mental formations interacting rather than an "ego"
on this thread, the same, like Moral_Crusader, who are warriors for rebirth are warriors against the mental formations view of "ego" and "past life memories"
Metta to all sentient beings
it is mental formations interacting rather than an "ego""
I agree but lets keep this an ego thread not a rebirth one. Thanks.
Destroying the ego is the essence of the Buddha's teachings. It is not at all controversial.
The enlightened disciples of the Buddha practised alone and ended ego in their meditation.
But, yes, it's not everyone's cup of tea, which is why the Buddha taught rebirth to those who do not see the need to follow his teaching, but instead, needed to follow the pre-existing Brahmin or Hindu teachings.
On this thread, the same, like Moral_Crusader, who are warriors for rebirth, are warriors against destroying the ego.
Thanks for the article. Its pretty much what I am arguing except I cant speak when it relates to what the Buddha taught because I am not well versed in it. Although I can see and expected that there would be no consensus with it. Although the penultimate line is confusing, "Buddhist know how to develop healthy egos over the centuries-so healthy, that they can ultimately drop the need to create "self".
As far as being a moral crusader for the ego I would disagree. I am inquiring about a situation to get closer to what I believe to be true. To find the path that is the truest, not to convert people for my cause. I really have no desire to convert anyone, it honestly makes no difference to me nor do I claim to be any closer to the truth.
Dharma Dhatu is referring to compassionate_warrior by moral_crusader. Don't mind him, he likes to turn every thread into a rebirth vs. no-rebirth thread.
With metta,
Sabre
(As always, DD, you've misread my posts. I'm not a "warrior for rebirth" (what would that make you: a warrior for no rebirth?). Do back and do some research among the rebirth threads. Everyone has to decide about rebirth for themselves. Not that this has ANYTHING to do with the OP...)
P.S. Someone seems to be attached to the name "Moral Crusader", and to provoking polemics.
.
The scriptures state, if the Buddha died, the Venerable Sariputta would not have sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress or despair.
But on this thread, if the Dalai Lama were to die, there would be widespread wailing & moaning.
:bawl:
Metta to all sentient beings
Do you think its wrong to cry if your parents die? or your own children? Do you think the right way is to not shed one tear?