Ego

[mindbodysOul]

I have recently become interested in the topic of ego or, better still, detaching oneself from the ego.

I am finding it difficult to let go of my own personal judgement when it comes to people i dont like. You know, when you meet someone new or even someone you've known for years and something about them doesnt sit well with you. How do you deal with this? I know letting go of ego allows for the free rein of unconditional love, but does this mean you will never feel a dislike towards anyone? Or does it mean you simply tolerate them as they are? Without ego are we without judgement, good or bad?

I guess i feel guily when i get a feeling of dislike towards certain people. I feel as though this isnt fair on them and i am acting superior in some way but im not sure how to surrender my judgement. I dont feel i should have to hang around people i dont like but then isnt not liking a person a direct indicator of living through ego?

Do people who claim to have let go of their ego ever feel anger, frustration or dislike towards anyone?

 

[namelesss]

I have recently become interested in the topic of ego or, better still, detaching oneself from the ego.

Don't believe the seductive lies that the ego (thoughts) so sweetly whispers in your straining ear...
A major moment in one's life is when we learn to identify ego in all its many guises, at least shortly after it's arival/manifestation.

I am finding it difficult to let go of my own personal judgement when it comes to people i dont like. You know, when you meet someone new or even someone you've known for years and something about them doesnt sit well with you. How do you deal with this? I know letting go of ego allows for the free rein of unconditional love, but does this mean you will never feel a dislike towards anyone? Or does it mean you simply tolerate them as they are?

"Perhaps it is the curvature of space that, like a funhouse mirror distorting our own reflection, we imagine strangers." - Mythopoeicon

When we don't like something in 'others', it is a reflection of that within us with which we are 'uncomfortable'. It is ego that imagines us as 'different than' others, 'autonomous'. It is not to be believed (at least by some).
In a complete definition of 'self', the entire universe (at that moment) must be included in the definition. There is one 'self'. The ego believes and enjoys the 'appearances'. The psychological processes of ego are very deep and varied, like a fine aged merlot (that leaves us intoxicated in our own stink, with a hangover).
Thinking that you have any choice in the matter is ego. Thinking that you can change the moment is ego. Thought is ego.
There are egoic moments and there are non-egoic moments for us all. The ratio varies, of course.
You are Conscious Perspective perceiving existence/universe, perceiver and perceived, One!
You are 'seperate' from nothing. 'Enlightenment' is the experiencing of this truth.

Without ego are we without judgement, good or bad?

Yes. Pride (believing the ego, 'sin') judges. From a religious perspective, judging things as 'good' and 'bad', morality, is the original sin! It is the lie believed.

I guess i feel guily when i get a feeling of dislike towards certain people. I feel as though this isnt fair on them and i am acting superior in some way but im not sure how to surrender my judgement.

Don't believe that you are superior. Enjoy the feeling when it rolls around, inhale it and dream, but don't believe that it is 'truth' that you are sucking down. Then you won't commit atrocities defending your (identified with) 'beliefs'.

I dont feel i should have to hang around people i dont like but then isnt not liking a person a direct indicator of living through ego?

I am, at times, having to interact with these 'disturbing' people. I don't 'like' or 'dislike' people, I accept them as they are, without judgement (most of the time) as I accept this 'self'. I treat 'others' with the same love and compassion and empathy as 'this self'. Politicians, whores and saints are all 'self', all feel pain, all worthy of love.
"The depth of your ignorance is your beelief in injustice and tragedy. What is the end of the world to the caterpillar, is a butterfly to a master." - Richard Bach

Do people who claim to have let go of their ego ever feel anger, frustration or dislike towards anyone?

We are not the same from moment to moment. Some moments see us all as egoPerspectives. Some moments have us humble, selfless, Zen, mindful and thoughtless! Some have us as destroyers, some as healers. We are human and are all that is human, and so much more. We are never the same from moment to moment and expecting 'consistency' is error.
But if we don't 'believe', it loses it's 'toxicity' when it does manifest. Perhaps you will be one who can 'not' believe. Perhaps you will be enlightened. Perhaps... but it isn't up to you. But if you must exhaust every resource to find out before you simply let go, like so many 'before' you, that is what you will do. We all are as our nature, the nature of the universe at the moment, manifests.
Anger is a flash of ego, and as such, betrays it's presence. Resentment turns to anger. "How dare that person not do as I think that they aught to do/say... How they dare to thwart my 'desires' (vanity)?!"

Do you 'believe' in 'free-will/choice'?
Ego.
Peace

 

[yougene]

If you are feeling an unwarranted emotional charge towards other people you are probably projecting your own repressions.

The ego doesn't go away, it's subordinated by an apprehension of Self. It's one thing to differentiate ego and Self. It's a whole other thing to repress your ego. If you repress aspects of yourself that you label "ego" you will project those aspects onto other people.

 

[ResinTeeth]

The ego doesn't go away, it's subordinated by an apprehension of Self.

Indeed, do not attempt to dissolve your ego (this is a) impossible and b) naive). Rather you should try to re-direct the intention of your ego.

 

[Shakti]

MBS, I think you've gotten excellent advice from the above posters. I don't want to repeat much of what they said, so I'll just be redundant in brief.

1. Don't surrender your judgments. If you're not happy with your judgments, examine your motivations for employing them.

2. Only ego can want to be free of ego.

3. You will be free from ego when you recognize and understand moment to moment that you have always been free.

4. When you have stabilized the above realization, you will be much more adept at reengaging ego and orienting its actions to higher purpose.

MBS, may you be liberated from all suffering.

We are never the same from moment to moment and expecting 'consistency' is error.

To bring up an old argument. I ask you nameless, is this consistently true? It seems consistent enough for you to repeat the idea a fair amount. Does not enlightenment reveal the eternal and everpresent? Anyway, Chaos is its own Order. Dharma need not be static.

 

[swilow]

2. Only ego can want to be free of ego.

Well said. The final emanciaptaion is freedom from even wanting freedom I guess.

3. You will be free from ego when you recognize and understand moment to moment that you have always been free.

Nice. Thats an excellent point

 

[BurnOneDown]

Wow this topic has generated incredible responses.

Do people who claim to have let go of their ego ever feel anger, frustration or dislike towards anyone?

If you live a practical life it is impossible to let go of your ego.

When we don't like something in 'others', it is a reflection of that within us with which we are 'uncomfortable'.

Yep, every time.

But if you must exhaust every resource to find out before you simply let go, like so many 'before' you, that is what you will do.

The resources will be as inexhaustible as the fear of letting go. It seems so unnatural to do that which doesn't need to be done.

Indeed, do not attempt to dissolve your ego (this is a) impossible and b) naive). Rather you should try to re-direct the intention of your ego.

Yea, this is great advice. But it's not impossible or naive to eliminate the ego. It's just a different way of life. Buddhist monks have been doing this since for thousands of years. However, it does require the individual to withdraw from practical life.

Does not enlightenment reveal the eternal and everpresent? Anyway, Chaos is its own Order. Dharma need not be static.

Enlightenment is a pretentious concept that does not accurately describe the slow progress of deepening awareness. If you're inquiring from a Buddhist perspective, I have found that there is nothing to reveal about such things. And ya, complete inconsistence is a constant.

'Truth' is worth repeating, no? Does it bother you? Do you have an actual refutation or just want to play word games?

It's not an 'argument' at all, it's dissembling!
'Consistency' is only possible from a linear Perspective, anyway.
'Truth' is not 'consistant'.
'Truth' is 'Truth'.

I think Shakti just wanted to obtain information. Some things about the ego or self-image are constant. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to recognize an individual. Physical appearance is always changing, yet there is something constant that can be recognized in it. A person's personality changes with incredible frequency, yet there is a constant essence that can always be recognized. This is just my opinion, but I feel that it is something I have experienced.



I also feel that there is too much ego bashing in this topic. The ego can be as beautiful as it can be ugly. There can be no love without its hate. There can be no pleasure without its suffering. It's the struggle that makes anything worthwhile. Without the ego, I couldn't be a cosmic actor in this utterly absurd reality. You are the punchline of the funniest joke ever. Just don't take yourself seriously. Find humility. Laugh at yourself. Go with the flow. Enjoy the simple things. Embrace variety. Let go of fear and channel love.

 

[ResinTeeth]

^ Idk, I have a hard time believing that Buddhist monks can truly completely eliminate the ego. Living an ascetic lifestyle doesn't mean the ego is ever gone. Think "why do they seek to eliminate the ego and who are they eliminating it for?" Well they are probably attempting to eliminate the ego to gain a greater understanding of existence and to know the meaning of suffering (forgive me if I have butchered Buddhist teachings, I'm not up to speed on them). Then you move onto who they are doing this for; two options present themselves: A) they are doing this for themselves whether it be directly or indirectly B) they are honestly doing this for the betterment of mankind in which case the latter is still fueled by the ego. It is the ego not wanting others to suffer, because suffering displeases the person in question.

This is not to say that doing things for the betterment of the whole of humanity are selfish, this is by no means the case. This is however a good example of a positively redirected ego.

Your ego is an innate part of your being, it is your engine, you will never completely rid yourself of it. I do think that many people confuse the Ego with the Id in that many people think that the Ego is just this concept of me wanting everything for myself.

 

[BurnOneDown]

^ Idk, I have a hard time believing that Buddhist monks can truly completely eliminate the ego. Living an ascetic lifestyle doesn't mean the ego is ever gone. Think "why do they seek to eliminate the ego and who are they eliminating it for?"

Buddhist monks don't have expectations. They do not engage in a cause for an effect. They do not posit a self.

Well they are probably attempting to eliminate the ego to gain a greater understanding of existence and to know the meaning of suffering

A monk would not have any such desires.

Then you move onto who they are doing this for; two options present themselves: A) they are doing this for themselves whether it be directly or indirectly B) they are honestly doing this for the betterment of mankind in which case the latter is still fueled by the ego. It is the ego not wanting others to suffer, because suffering displeases the person in question.

Yea, it's the state of mind that you do not understand. Buddhist monks don't consider a self. They don't even think. This criticism is irrelevant because concepts such as self or mankind doesn't apply to such an existence.

This is not to say that doing things for the betterment of the whole of humanity are selfish, this is by no means the case. This is however a good example of a positively redirected ego.

Have you ever meditated? There is no ego for these people to redirect. They have simply attained a mind state through meditation that is without a self. Ideally, at least.

also complete selfsishness is the same exact thing is complete selflessness. Some people just don't understand what is in their self's best interest.

Your ego is an innate part of your being, it is your engine, you will never completely rid yourself of it.

Ego is not an innate part of being. A baby is not born with an ego. It is not your engine, just your delusion. Animals survive fine without ego. It's just a different mind state.

 

[ResinTeeth]

A monk would not have any such desires.

fair enough

Yea, it's the state of mind that you do not understand. Buddhist monks don't consider a self. They don't even think. This criticism is irrelevant because concepts such as self or mankind doesn't apply to such an existence.

Quick to make assumptions eh? The thing is I do understand them not having a concept of self. Good for them, they've essentially reduced themselves to a rock with the ability to piss, shit, eat and sleep. That's a fine existence if that's what you want but that isn't going to accomplish anything. Being a content being with an ego intact and being a content being who is without a self are two different things, I'd prefer the former.

As for they "They don't even think" comment I really don't want to get into how ridiculous that sounds as they would have to completely bypass all the cerebral cortex and possess only autonomic functions essentially becoming a vegetable.

Have you ever meditated? There is no ego for these people to redirect. They have simply attained a mind state through meditation that is without a self. Ideally, at least.

I have meditated and of course I didn't attain that state

Ego is not an innate part of being. A baby is not born with an ego. It is not your engine, just your delusion. Animals survive fine without ego. It's just a different mind state.

I beg to differ. All sentient beings are born with an ego, it develops as the concept of identity develops. An animal is an animal and a human is a human; if we were all meant to exist on the same tier of existence (that being ego-less, animate creatures) we would all be that way, but we aren't. Let's just come to terms with our condition.



Note: If the buddhist monk doesn't posit a self then he can't have the desires I mentioned in the previous post. That makes sense but take into consideration that at one point the monk did posit a self and had to have a reason or a desire to go into training as a monk to begin with.

 

[swilow]

As for they "They don't even think" comment I really don't want to get into how ridiculous that sounds as they would have to completely bypass all the cerebral cortex and possess only autonomic functions essentially becoming a vegetable.

Various monks can keep the exact same brainwave output for up to five minutes, meaning (interepeted as) they are either not thinking, or thinking solely about ONE item.

Saying a monks existence is just bare essentials is utterly correct. People don't just wake up as monks- they decide that THEY themselves want to become one, for whatever reason. Desire is undefeatable. Except when what you desire is nothing- literally No Thing.

 

[noone1]

fair enough



Quick to make assumptions eh? The thing is I do understand them not having a concept of self. Good for them, they've essentially reduced themselves to a rock with the ability to piss, shit, eat and sleep. That's a fine existence if that's what you want but that isn't going to accomplish anything. Being a content being with an ego intact and being a content being who is without a self are two different things, I'd prefer the former.

No, being reduced to the state of an animal is not what they are doing that is the complete opposite of enlightenment. It's not that they don't think it's that the thoughts no longer control them, the point is not to be attached to anything to let your mind flow free. If enlightenment was not the supreme joy, more liberating than drug use, sex, food, the material world etc then there would be no point in attaining it. But this is the paradox that makes it so difficult to achieve you cannot want to attain it.

I beg to differ. All sentient beings are born with an ego, it develops as the concept of identity develops. An animal is an animal and a human is a human; if we were all meant to exist on the same tier of existence (that being ego-less, animate creatures) we would all be that way, but we aren't. Let's just come to terms with our condition.



Note: If the buddhist monk doesn't posit a self then he can't have the desires I mentioned in the previous post. That makes sense but take into consideration that at one point the monk did posit a self and had to have a reason or a desire to go into training as a monk to begin with.

The ego is illusion. Of course it will always be "there" in some form but once you understand that the voice in your head is not you, when you begin paying attention to your thoughts and not react/let them control you a higher sense of being can begin. Anything "good/pleasurable" that you experience is fleeting and thus will bring about suffering.

 

[Shakti]

I think Shakti just wanted to obtain information.

Nah, I was challenging his statement. He knows that cuz we were talking about it before.

I beg to differ. All sentient beings are born with an ego, it develops as the concept of identity develops. An animal is an animal and a human is a human; if we were all meant to exist on the same tier of existence

I agree with this. All animals have an individuated sense of self. Their thoughts probably aren't dominated by words as most of our thoughts seem to be, but they have an individual perspective (ego) that is necessary for their material survival, just as it is for us.

I think it is important to understand that in order to transcend ego, you must enter into a formless dimensionless state. Anything short of that and ego remains. Monks have egos. Buddha had an ego. :O gasp! It is simply our mechanisms for constructing perspective and interacting with the manifest world. If you wish to truly and completely get rid of ego, it wont be ego that dies, it will be you!

 

[ResinTeeth]

I think it is important to understand that in order to transcend ego, you must enter into a formless dimensionless state. Anything short of that and ego remains. Monks have egos. Buddha had an ego. :O gasp! It is simply our mechanisms for constructing perspective and interacting with the manifest world. If you wish to truly and completely get rid of ego, it wont be ego that dies, it will be you!

Thank you God, somebody is on the same page as me when it comes to the concept of the ego. I wholly agree the ego is transcendable but as you and I have both stated it is not dissolvable short of a gunshot to the head.

 

[yougene]

When you are in judgement of others, it is the Superego and not the ego and it is directed outwards, rather then inwards as a lot of the time does bringing self consciousness and it is the societal "voice" or parental.

That's a good summary of the Freudian model of repression. The use of the latin words ego, super-ego, and id in the translation is unfortunate but the model is relevant.




There are states where "ego" as we know it doesn't arise or is significantly altered. That's not what enlightenment is about though. Ego-loss is a transient state that comes and goes. Enlightenment is about the open-space of being where these transient states come and go like clouds in the sky. Ego-loss is useful in that it points to this aspect of ourselves by negation, but it's a transient state. Buddhist monks aren't in a perpetual state of ego-loss, they are in constant identification with that, that is ever-present and formless.

 

[mindbodysOul]

thank you all so much for the replies, awesome discussion.

I have a few questions but one major one i'd like some opinions on.

What exactly is the purpose of ego and why is transcending it of any purpose to us. Why are we given an ego if our only goal is to be rid of it?

Surely we have an ego for a reason. Is transcending ego not going from one extreme to the other? Shouldnt we all strive for a balance ie realising ego yet not succumbing to it?

 

[namelesss]

The resources will be as inexhaustible as the fear of letting go.

Deep, dude! Nice call. *__-

It seems so unnatural to do that which doesn't need to be done.

Whatever we 'do', whatever we are, the structure of the universe, at the moment, is exactly as it must (needs to) be. Complete. Balanced. One.
There is nothing in existence that is disposable (or changeable) that would not alter the entire universe if removed (or changed)!
That is why the notion of 'free-will/choice' is so laughable. The 'belief' is seeing ourselves as gods creating and altering the universe/existence at our whim (will) and desire! A 'heady' delusion, but delusion nontheless.

Some things about the ego or self-image are constant. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to recognize an individual. Physical appearance is always changing, yet there is something constant that can be recognized in it.

When looking at the pile of moments, from a particular Perspective here and a particular Perspective there, some of those moments appear to have a linearly sequential relation in which the phenomenon of 'consistancy'; one moment resembling another where we posit 'connection'. Its a memory thing, its a thought thing. Its a Perspectival thing. Everything in life is consistant would be a life truth to a Perspective that saw things like that. Just not every life. Not for every Perspective.
Imagine a world where people can allow others to be as unique as they are! *__-

A person's personality changes with incredible frequency, yet there is a constant essence that can always be recognized. This is just my opinion, but I feel that it is something I have experienced.

'Personality' as 'self', perceived as differentiated from existence at the moment, is egoic image. The moment to moment universal 'self' (for we are no different than that which we perceive) that we perceive/are is always different, objects just look closer in the side mirrors. What never can change, who we actually are, in essence, is Consciousness (Conscious Perspective); featureless, qualityless, timeless, thoughtless, dreamless, desireless, absolutely symmetrical, ineffable...
All the hubbub of existence is no more than a momentary flash of 'Mind' into Consciousness (via Conscious Perspectives, 'us').

I also feel that there is too much ego bashing in this topic. The ego can be as beautiful as it can be ugly.

True!
"Ego is beautiful in the (deluded) eye of the beholder of the mirror, ugly when truly perceived in others."
As much as egoPerspective is a truth of existence, so is 'ego bashing'.

Just don't take yourself seriously. Find humility. Laugh at yourself. Go with the flow. Enjoy the simple things. Embrace variety. Let go of fear and channel love.

As if we have any choice in the matter...
Lovely sentiment, though.
The 'prideful' are as much a truth of existence as a 'saint'. Just 'be' as you are Now! and Now! and Now!!! (as if you have a choice!)
(One can never know if one has 'humility'! If you think that you are 'humble', you ain't! *__-)

Peace

Oh, I almost forgot, here's a site with much interesting food for thought;
Ego Death and Self-Control Cybernetics
Enjoy!

 

[namelesss]

Why are we given an ego if our only goal is to be rid of it?

Surely we have an ego for a reason.

'We'? Not everyone, just a very few 'freaks'.
And why couldn't that be it's 'reason'? I can see that Perspective.
Not that I believe in 'reasons' (though sometimes I pragmatically 'make-believe'), as that is another name for 'cause and effect', which is an 'obsolete' theory. 'Reasons' only exist for those seeking them; 'question' and 'answer' are mutually arising features of the same event/Perspective/perception.

 

[namelesss]

We are never the same from moment to moment and expecting 'consistency' is error.

To bring up an old argument. I ask you nameless, is this consistently true?

Shakti, I need to revise my statement thusly;
"We are never the same from moment to moment, and 'from'/as certain Perspectives, expecting 'consistency', is error."

I think that you might object less, if at all, to the revised statement.
If you still have a problem, I'm right here.

 

[noone1]

thank you all so much for the replies, awesome discussion.

I have a few questions but one major one i'd like some opinions on.

What exactly is the purpose of ego and why is transcending it of any purpose to us. Why are we given an ego if our only goal is to be rid of it?

Surely we have an ego for a reason. Is transcending ego not going from one extreme to the other? Shouldnt we all strive for a balance ie realising ego yet not succumbing to it?

I think a lot of people are under the mistaken assumption that ego death is the same as enlightenment. Transcending your ego dosen't mean getting rid of it, that is not the goal. Rather to rid yourself of unecessary suffering by not being attached to anything "good" or "bad" to even free yourself of the attachement of wanting to free yourself from attachements.

You have an ego yet you don't have an ego.

As to why we have one is a complex question. We can only speculate.

Personally I think it is an evolutionary survival mechanism that has served it's purpose, humanity should move on to a higher mental plane.